The Piece I Said I Would Never Write

I have to say up front that I despise that I am even writing about this topic. I told my wife when I started this blog that I was not going to get into it and would leave it alone. As many of you have seen I have stayed fairly hands off with it when it comes up in the comments. But there are many of you who are having these discussions in the threads of other posts so I have given up on ignoring it. I will give you my thoughts. on the subject, but I will not, I repeat I will not, pretend that I have a definitive answer or that I know the right path forward. I am just offering thoughts, nothing more, nothing less. And then you can all debate away….

Why does someone who writes a blog that focuses on politics refuse to cover the topic of abortion? Because I don’t think the abortion is a political issue. It has been made into a political issue, but it isn’t. Roe versus Wade will never be overturned, ever. No matter how much everyone wants to claim otherwise, it simply will not be overturned. There is no constitutional authority to overturn it, and there will never be enough of a consensus in this country to change that. And I have news for all of you that want to debate it below: No matter how solid you think your argument is, you are never going to change the opinion of those who feel the opposite. I have never seen it happen, not once.

That is not to say I don’t encourage debate on the topic, because I think the debate is healthy if everyone can agree to my ground rules. And those ground rules are the same I ask in every debate. Use logic, Do so respectfully. I know you are passionate about this subject, but take a moment to really think about the opposing opinions presented. Don’t blow them off as religious zealots or deranged baby killers. That is what the politicians want you to do. THINK. discuss. Try to understand. You don’t have to agree but you can respectfully agree to disagree without being angry about it or bitter that they won’t change their mind.

I want everyone to remember one thing before you start this debate. Think about who you are debating with. I have not found any person who has posted on this blog to be a monster in any way. We debate on this blog every day and we know those debating here are not bad people no matter which side they fall on. Those on the pro-life side are not horrible people who want to take control of your womb. They are merely christians who’s faith tells them that this act is wrong. And they don’t understand your side. Those on the pro-choice side are not monsters who just want to murder children. They are merely folks who don’t share that belief and who want the right to make their own choices with their own consequences. And they don’t understand your side.

Take this opportunity to learn the other perspective and understand the other side a little better. Take this opportunity to find out that the other side isn’t made up of bad people, just different opinions. By coming together and discussing this civilly we take a giant step in thwarting the divisiveness that government is attempting to sow between you. But above all, know up front that no one is going to change their mind.

So where do I fall? I have to tell you that I don’t rightly know. I struggle with this debate because I do not like abortion at all. I don’t condone it, nor would I do it. But at the same time I recognize that I don’t have the right to make that decision for someone else. On the big parts of the debate:

Where does life begin? This seems like a good starting point. It seems that one side says conception and the other says “at some other point”. I fall into the second category at this point in life. I believe that life begins at the point where the life can exist on its own. I know that is a tough thing to define. And I don’t have a firm length into pregnancy where that happens. I know at 3 months a baby could not be taken out of the womb and survive. Because of this I don’t think that this is a person yet. I know that many babies born at 7 months can be saved, so they are people at that point. The gray area comes in between. But the answer for me is that life begins at the point that a child can survive “outside the womb”.

Does the bible give a better definition of defining the moment that life begins. Does it specifically say that life begins at conception? I ask because I don’t know the answer. Or is the “moment of conception” belief merely an edict of the Pope or some other human faction of the church? I am interested in learning where that particular definition of the beginning of life came from.

Is abortion wrong? I believe that it is. While I don’t recognize the child as a separate entity until it is able to survive on its own, that doesn’t mean that I don’t respect that it is a growing organism that is going to become a separate entity. To that end I do not like the idea of abortions happening. It is taking the chance at life away, regardless of whether you believe that life currently exists or not. So if I were a woman, I would not have one. If my wife or daughter or sister were wanting an abortion, I would do my best to persuade them not to have one. But I would not forbid it. It may permanently and irrevocably damage our relationship, but I cannot tell someone else what to do with their body.

Should we legally stop people from having an abortion? Absolutely not. I know that some of you are already rolling your eyes and your opinion has dropped of me already. And that makes me a bit sad. But here is where I must live what I believe. I do not believe that I have the right to tell another person what to do with their body. And it doesn’t give me more of a right to do so because “God said so”. Because maybe they don’t even believe in God. And I don’t have the right to force my beliefs on them, whatever they may be. I try my best in life to not be a hypocrite. I know I screw that up sometimes, but I try. So I put myself in this situation:

I am a woman who got drunk at a party and ended up pregnant. It was stupid I know. I counted the days since my last ovulation and thought I was safe from getting pregnant. I was apparently wrong. Now I am 2 months into this and realizing that I don’t want a child. I have two options: carry to term and give the child up or have an abortion. So I weigh those options. I personally don’t want to carry for nine months, face the prospect of missing 2-3 months of work that I cannot afford to miss, and face the lifetime threat of some child coming back to me and making me feel like shit 20 years from now for “not wanting them”.

So I weigh the option of having an abortion. I know what the church says. It says I am wrong, that I am going to go to hell if I have an abortion. After considering this, I decide that the church is wrong. I decide that I will live a good life and ask Jesus for forgiveness for what I am considering. If God is what the church tells me that he is, he is going to understand. He will know how much this decision weighed on my soul. And he will know that I didn’t do this on a whim. And he will forgive me. Or maybe he won’t. And then I will have to live with that for eternity in hell. But I don’t believe that will be the case. So I decide to have an abortion.

How can I tell that girl that she is not allowed to make that decision for herself? Because I believe she is still at the point where life has not begun. She, in my opinion, still has the right to make whatever choice she wants and face the consequences for her action. If there is a God, he is the only one fit to judge her for her actions, not me. God says don’t kill. God also says don’t judge. Who am I to determine which of those edicts takes precedence.

Do Christians have the right to legislate on abortion? Absolutely not. I know that the christian faith is the overwhelming majority in America. I also know that the founders specifically mandated that a person’s religious beliefs should not and cannot be forced on to a believer of a different faith. And that includes a faith that does not see abortion as wrong in the eyes of their God. And I believe that if Christians attempt to take this step they are setting themselves up for a major disappointment somewhere down the road.

One place where BlackFlag has always been absolutely correct is that whatever right you give government to do to someone else, you also give them the right to do to you. You want to give government the right to tax the rich more heavily than you, then you have given the government to tax you or tax the poor more heavily than the rich if they deem it necessary. If you give them the right to tell non-christians that they have to adhere to a christian belief, then you give them the right to later tell christians to abandon their faith if some other religion were to gain the majority. You are looking to tell others that they cannot do what their faith says they can do. Would you be willing to accept the same limitations placed on your worship if the tables were turned? If not, then you already know the answer.

Do pro-choice folks have the right to unfettered abortion? No, I don’t believe that they do. At some point you cross a line where that child can live on its own outside the womb. If you have an abortion at that point, I believe that you are murdering a living person. Where you draw that line is tough to define. I am open to any suggestions as to how this could be done. I also do not believe that the government should at ANY POINT be paying for a woman to have an abortion, with the exception of rape. If a woman is raped and becomes pregnant, I am OK with her receiving government help to terminate the pregnancy. Outside of that, zero government assistance. It falls under that silly personal accountability thing I adhere to.

Wrapping it Up…

As you can see I don’t have the answer for how to handle this whole abortion thing. I know what I believe, but I don’t know that I am right or that I am wrong. And I don’t have the answer to how to fix it all. I just know that I have a problem with me thinking that I have the right to tell someone else what to do, no matter how moral or immoral I think their actions are. I think the idea of murder is clear, and I will stop it where I can. But I don’t know if abortion is murder because of my point about where life begins. I know there are some absolutes in terms of morals: stealing, for example. And I know that there are morals set up by society that I must adhere to if I want to live within that society. I am OK with that too. So I am OK when a church decides it will not allow members who have had an abortion or who are gay. It is their own little mini-society and they can run it with whatever morals they like. But I don’t think that all morals can be applied to an entire country.

So now I set you free to tell me what a horrible person I am. I have done my best to prepare myself for the backlash for what I have written. I have done my best to accept all of you despite the areas where we may disagree, I hope that you can do the same for me. I would not have touched this subject if it hadn’t been breaking out all over the place. I want the other threads to focus on the topics in them, not this issue so I am sacrificing myself in the hope that it will keep the debate focused in this thread rather than the other ones.

Like this:

Related

Comments

I think you write very well, and I enjoyed reading this. I also think you sounds like a very sensible man, and I agree with you when you say that you cannot know if you are right or wrong, no matter what you believe. In my opinion people have to do what feels right to them, I don’t think abortion is more right or wrong than to have a baby you basically don’t want to have..

Thanks Camilla… Good to see that at leas the first person replying didn’t skewer me. I intend to jump over tomorrow and check out your blog. I try to check out those of anyone who comes and sees mine! And before I forget to be proper, welcome to the site. If you stick around and engage in the debates you can be amazed at how well the different views play with one another. I hope you will stick around. If tomorrow afternoon is like normal, there will probably be a couple hundred people bantering about…

I cannot explain any of my personal convictions without giving at least a smidgen of my personal history.

I was born Roman Catholic, baptized shortly after birth. Dropped all religion after having been dragged through just about every church in the Pacific Northwest. Therefore I do not belong to any religious organization at all,I do have a personal belief in God, however yet do not consider myself a Christian. I have been married to a devout Christian for over 40 years and she is now the clerk of the church she attends. She is my second wife. My first and I got divorced shortly after my return from `Nam.

I will say this about life. I am a man who has taken human lives. Yes, that is plural. Enough said on that subject.

After the Roe v Wade decision, I really didn’t give it much thought. Then I began seeing a trend. Abortion being used for birth control. I had a personal friend whose daughter used to call me Uncle that used her “right” to a free (taxpayer funded) abortion at least seven different times. I was very uncomfortable about this and did not know why. Therefore I began doing some of what my wife called “soul searching” in order to figure out why I was uncomfortable about all this. It wasn’t long before my thoughts reached back into the dark days of my war experiences. I remember what one NVA captive had told me when I questioned him about what his unit had done to a small village that did not cooperate with the Communist forces. He told me that we Americans were weak in the fact that we held life sacred, especially those of children and pregnant women, and that what they did was to leave us a message to show us our weaknesses. I remember thinking at the time that he just wanted to anger me enough to kill him. I am not a murderer, so I did not. I later found out that what he told me was the truth. Enough said about that.

I have come to the conclusion that there are certain circumstances where abortion is warranted. Just a few. To be honest, I understand that medical doctors take an oath to do no harm, so I do not understand how a doctor can actually perform an abortion without violating that oath unless one or more of the following conditions are present;

The mothers life is in danger if the pregnancy is not terminated.

The mother is the victim of a violent rape.

The mother is the victim of an incestuous impregnation.

The fetus has died from normal circumstances in the womb.

About babies that would be born with Down Syndrome? I have a Grandson with Down Syndrome, and believe me that little boy is more intelligent than most adults I know. A Down Syndrome diagnosis is not reason for abortion. Why? Because those tests are not all that accurate.

And that is about it. Why? In this modern age that we live in there are numerous methods of birth control, from IUD’s to very effective and safe medications – including the “morning after pill” that has been proven to be very effective and very safe. Abortion does not need to be used for birth control.

Where does life begin? I have decided that for me, life begins at conception – that point in time where the sperm enters the ovum and that cell begins to split. Why? What better way to solve an argument? Condoms, birth control pills, and things like that prevent that from happening, so using that as a starting point seems logical to me.

Some states have a law that says that children can get an abortion without parental consent – To me that is disgusting. I believe that a parent is responsible for that child from conception until the age of legal adulthood. Period.

Oh, and taxpayer funded abortion? Get real! Our tax dollars should never be used for that, unless the above listed one or more conditions are present. Period.

And that is my two cents worth on that issue. For those readers who want to debate me on this, please understand that for me this is just not debatable. It has taken a lot of soul searching and a lot of thought and a lot of arguments with family and friends before I came to this decision. I will not change my opinion for anyone. Period.

Birth control pills and IUD’s and morning-after pills do not prevent conception. They prevent implantation. So from your view point these would not be viable options. No problem. Do you want to make them illegal for others?

“Birth control pills and IUD’s and morning-after pills do not prevent conception. They prevent implantation.” Not true. Copper causes an imflammatory response that is toxic to sperm. May prevent implantation, but that is not the primary mechanism of action. Progesterone IUD thickens cervical mucous, reduces tubal transport of sperm and ovum, and prevents ovulation. Post-coital contraception delays ovulation and thickens cervical mucous and delays tubal transport of sperm and ovum.

I understand your view of things very well. I can’t say that I totally agree with you, but you have many good points. I think it is horrible that a lot of people use abortion as birth-control, but I also think that everyone should have the right to decide whether or not they want to have a baby. In Norway, where I live, everyone has free health care, so everyone gets a taxpayer founded abortion, you can’t pay for it unless you go to a private hospital, which is very uncommon…

you state that everyone should have the right to decide whether or not they want to have a baby. I personally/logically/everythingly agree with you.

However, here is the rub… If you do not want to have children, what are you doing having sex? One of the consequences\repercussions of having sex (protected or unprotected) is that the female may become pregnant.

I would respectfully state that if two consenting human beings want to engage in this activity, then they should be prepared to deal with the repercussions of their actions.

I see your point. I knew a girls who said she wouldn’t have sex until she was ready to have a baby, and she became a mother 17 years old…

I’m guessing most people have sex for fun, and once, twice, tree times or so, in their lifetime they have sex to have children, and I think that is OK. In Africa, for instance, poor people have loads of children and can’t feed them. It is looked upon as rude to ask your parter about birth control in some areas (a friend of mine works in Egypt, trying to prevent people from infecting each other with HIV and Aids), but then again it is not OK to not wanting to have sex with your husband. In such cases I think abortion would be a good thing, because it is not a better solution to give birth to a child that will die of hunger after a few years. But these women don’t get to have an abortion, or enough help to feed their children. And now I’m just writing everything that comes into my mind, forgetting what I really wanted to say. If these women were offered an abortion, I’m sure that would be after they were offered enough food (hopefully, but you never know).. Did you get my point at all…? Sigh…

I appreciate your willingness to share some of your story in order to help us understand your thoughts. The fact that we can open up so much is one of the great things about this blog.

I use to hold ideas similar to what you list as to reasons for allowing abortions. However, reality has caused me to change my mind. (See US, people on either side of this issue can change their minds!! 🙂 ). First off, the exception for the health of the mother has been made so broad, that you could fit a convoy of 18 wheelers through it. In its infinite ‘wisdom’ our judiciary has decided that health of the mother exception has to include provisions for the woman’s mental stability. All a woman has to say to the right doctor is that she is depressed because she is pregnant and there goes the life of that child.

As a side note, the last reason you state is not really an abortion. It is in the medical sense, but not to the mind of those involved in this issue. My wife and I had the misfortune to lose several of our children before they were born, and do not consider what my wife had to go through to be an abortion.

Do you want someone investigating you and your wife for murder? If abortion is murder, all pregnancies that did not come to delivery should be investigated to make sure the rights of the child were not violated. The child “deserves” it!
Pretty harsh, but you cannot have it both ways.
Losing a child is hard no matter how it happens.
However, bringing an unwanted child into this world and failing at the responsibility of parenting is even worse.

The only real thing with I cannot agreewith in your post G.A. is the part about tax payer funded. I like you do not go to church, so I look at this “tax payer” expense as a “contribution” to the health of the woman receiving a safe operation. Like most of you here I hate talking about or debating this topic. It gets too emotional and to me serves no real purpose. “Choice” is what is and I am glad society has decided to think of the health of the individual who chooses this as an option. Unfortunately our tax dollars are irresponsibly spent on many other things out of our control that are in my opinion far worse. I guess I am OK with this one.

Your points are good. You nearly capture my own thoughts on this issue. Here are a couple of other points to consider.
I think when you consider legislating something, you should also consider how it will be enforced/punished etc. Do we want government more in our Dr.’s offices? If a women is stopped from having an illegal abortion, would we then charge practitioner and women with attempted murder? So then pregnant woman goes to prison? We declare death we there is no “human” brian activity. The brain stem can still be functioning with heart beating etc. the body is still alive but there is no thought or consciousness. So perhaps the start of “human life” could be defined as when the brain has developed beyond those simple body function activities. I would have to do some research to find approximately when that is. I’ll ask my Neuro DH.

Not ot throw a wrench into the works, but if I leave my house tomorrow and shoot and kill a woman who is five months pregnant, or even as little as two or three, I will be charged with double homocide for both her and her unborn child (in most states). I have no homocidal instincts, but isn’t this an inconsistancy in the law? If a baby is a person for which I can be prosecuted for murder before birth, then that person should also be considered a person before the law when being aborted. It has to be one way or the other.

Then why do we not investigate mis-carriages for evidence of murder??
This is what happens when we give credence to individuals who refuse to accept Roe v Wade.
Judicious men weighing the facts made a decision. Accept it.

“Does the Bible give a better definition of defining the moment that life begins. Does it specifically say that life begins at conception? I ask because I don’t know the answer. Or is the “moment of conception” belief merely an edict of the Pope or some other human faction of the church? I am interested in learning where that particular definition of the beginning of life came from.”

God Himself, in the Bible, has defined when life begins. He told Jeremiah that He knew him BEFORE he was even conceived, as God knows ALL His children BEFORE conception.

(Jeremiah 1:5 KJV) “Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.”

Every life is precious, woman or child. And the point made that a person can be charged for 2 murders if a pregnant woman is killed is good but falls into the realm of consent. A woman can “consent” to kill a baby but no one else can by the law of the land. Yet, as we saw in the Bible, the child belongs to the Lord, not the woman.

To me it is clear cut. God says it is clear cut. If you don’t believe in God, okay, your choice, but I don’t believe in taxes and they still have to be paid. April 15th rolls around every year whether I believe in taxes or not. And no amount of me arguing with President Obama is going to change those taxes. And, if I don’t pay those taxes, there is a penalty and the taxes are still there and due anyway.

One day, April 15th for those who choose abortion is going to come around also, whether you believe or not. And no amount of arguing about, or with, God is going to change that. The penalty will still be there and due anyway.

Interesting that you see this as so clear cut. To my way of thinking, God’s ‘knowing’ humans before they are born speaks to the concept that we are spirits/souls/energy (whatever you want to call it) that exist in the universe. This concept holds that ‘human existence’ is only one part of our journey. So, God has ‘known’ us because we have existed in some form other than human bodies. I see a difference between the beginning of a being and the beginning of a ‘human’ being. Did my best to get my thought across……..hope it doesn’t sound too loony. lol

Here’s the way my religious tradition teaches it (no I’m not the type to just accept without thinking about it either).

We are “intelligences” then God created us as spirit children. All life, animal, plant etc. begins as “intelligences” and proceeds to spirit and then to physical.

But whatever the intelligence they are in essence to begin with is what they are to end with, with a great deal of growth along the way. A human is always a human, even before it has spiritual or physical form.

I know this isn’t about religious belief exactly, but if you can understand why this issue is so important to people of faith maybe it helps a little.

On the other hand people of faith generally believe in God’s ultimate justice. In this case, for both a person who is involved in abortion and for the aborted child–it’s not really the end of the life of that child. The greatest damage is actually done to the woman, the doctor, and others who support the taking of life.

Following this definition it would be safe to assume that life ends when it can no longer exist on its own. Hence anyone with a defibrillator or necessary medication is technically not a viable life. This is the natural progression of your stance, not in your mind but in the irrational world it is.

If your definition were to become a legal precedent (I think it already may be) there is a strong argument for euthanasia. There are those that lobby just as hard for this as abortion though in fewer numbers.

On your point about “No matter how solid you think your argument is, you are never going to change the opinion of those who feel the opposite. I have never seen it happen” I only half agree here. My experience shows that people tend to concede small points (like yours – not sure when life starts) usually because they are not well versed in debate or just unfamiliar with the topic (assuming that is not you). Rarely do you see this concession from Liberal to Conservative. I feel this has much to do with the Stockholm Syndrome but that is another discussion.

Life being dependant on another being is not sufficient reason to deny that it IS life. I have never seen the newborn baby who could survive on its own. All you have to do is leave that baby alone and it will soon be dead. Does that mean it is not really life?

Then perhaps I need to clarify the position. It is not whether that baby can take care of itself, but whether it can physically perform the necessary actions for life… breathing, blood flowing, processing of food, etc. At 3 months a child pulled out of the womb will not survive. At 7 months it can. the gray is in between.

I am pretty sure that when I get the flu, I will not survive if my wife doesn’t take care of me. But my body functions are there.

U.S. stated:
It is not whether that baby can take care of itself, but whether it can physically perform the necessary actions for life… breathing, blood flowing, processing of food, etc.

I believe we need to explore what you term the “necessary actions for life” a bit more.That to me is a flawed arguement for the simple fact that no matter how eloquently someone puts it the fetus is still a living entity.Dependant on its mother yes, but still alive.Hell were all dependant on our mother for our food and shelter for years after were born.Why don’t we allow her to kill a child after they are born if she falls on hard times and can’t support the child?

I had a girlfriend in college who’s father was a doctor. This doctor biologically explained a child in the following way:

“After conception, the fetus is a mass of rapidly dividing but undifferentiated cells. This mass of cells is the equivalent of a cancer. Soon, this mass of cells attaches an umbilical cord to the mother and the mother then provides all nutrition and sustenance to this rapidly dividing mass of cells, while the mass of cells provides nothing to the mother in return. This is eqivalent to a parasite. Eventually these cells begin to differentiate and form all of the organs, muscles, tissues, etc. At this point the mass of cells begins to resemble a human being, albeit with gills. Quite a bit later, the lungs become developed enough, that were the fetus to be ripped from his protective environment, s/he would be able to breathe outside of the womb and probably survive. At what point does this cancer that becomes a parasite, that becomes something resembling a human actually become alive? There are single-celled anaerobic bacteria that we recognize as being “alive” even though they MUST live in an environment devoid of oxygen. In spite of the fact that they only have one cell, and they would instantly die if exposed to oxygen, we still recognize them as ‘alive” do we not?”

Bingo! I have been racking my brain trying to come up with a way to put what you just said and didn’t have the words to do it. Thank you! If we consider a single cell bacteria alive, why not a baby, no matter what stage of development?

It it not a matter of “alive” yes bacteria, yeasts, plants, animals and most of the things you eat were “alive.” At what point is it a distinct human individual rather then a potential human? Consider Ontogeny and Phylogeny.

That is an emotional response Texas. No one is advocating killing children that cannot feed themselves, so let’s not attempt to throw that emotional distraction in there. Perhaps, based on that, it is you who need to explore my term a little more. And don’t try to confuse my point, because you know what I mean. The lungs are not developed. the child cannot breath. If that child were removed from the womb, you could not save it. That is the point I am talking about. You are entitled to your opinion, but if you want to debate the issue, we need to avoid clouding it with emotion or false arguments.

As to the point you are trying to make. Under your argument, that it is a living thing, then would masturbation by a male be murder as well? After all the sperm being wasted would be a living thing, that would eventually turn into a human being. Not trying to be silly here, just clarifying.

I was not being emotional U.S. My point is that a baby in the womb is exactly that.A young human that has just as much right to life as you or I.

Perhaps we should debate when the blastomere becomes human rather than what happens when you remove the life sustaining conditions necessary for survival.

As to your point of the child being removed from the womb that is invalid because science can fertilize a human egg in a test tube and transplant the blastomere to an artificial womb fully capable of nourishing the entity to full term development.It is not done because of the question of ethics but it is capable of being done.For it to not survive would mean cutting off the life sustaining conditions.

Then I apologize for calling it emotional. I know I am being a bit sensitive on the emotional tones things, not because I feel it invalidates anything or any of that. I just am trying to make sure we keep this civil. Nothing personal there.

So then are you OK with someone who is on life support having the “plug pulled”?

Fortunately, in my lifetime, this subject has only appeared to me via the media. I do not know anyone who has had an abortion, including in High School. I also think both sides have good arguments for their respective positions. I will state, that because of my lack of experience on this subject, my opinion is more on “should it be legislated?”

I would say “NO” to it being legislated. I believe that abortion should be regulated by one’s religious beliefs, not by any government.

I agree with G.A. Rowe, that some circumstances could warrant strying from one’s beliefs, but it should still be up to the individual and their beliefs.

THANK YOU FOR PUTTING UP THIS POST. I know that you do not like going against what you say that you will or will not do, but I do appreciate this opportunity to have a civilized discussion of this topic.

“No matter how solid you think your argument is, you are never going to change the opinion of those who feel the opposite. I have never seen it happen, not once.”–US Weapon

First off, just because you have not seen something happen does not mean that it will never happen. Just because I have never seen an actual nuclear explosion does not mean that they do not happen. (BTW, the mushroom cloud is not the actual explosion, just the RESULTS of the explosion.)

I personally am walking proof that opinions can and do change. I use to hold to the very liberal thoughts of complete, unrestricted, government funded abortion. I use to say that some people are walking ads for the need of abortion. That opinion has changed. While I agree with you it is not likely to change BECAUSE OF THIS DEBATE, opinions can and do change.

I have been following this blog for several months now. This is my first post. I have really enjoyed reading the discussions.

I have had an abortion. There are two people in my life that know. My husband and me. It was not an easy decision. I was very young (but older than 18). It still effects me today in some ways.

I would not do it again given a second chance, but I do not feel that it is in any way the government’s right to legislate the issue. It is a personal issue between a woman, the father and her God (if she believes.) The father is often left out of the discussion since he is just a “sperm donor.” How much should he be involved in the decision? If the woman carries to term and he didn’t want the child he is still obligated to pay child support. On the other hand, supposed she wants to terminate and he wants the child. What then?

Spyder, It all really comes down to personnal decisions. Many people have very strong views on this issue, and there will always be questions that can never be answered. The fact that you have experienced this is an example of personnal a decision, and that should only be judged by yourself, your husband and your religious beliefs, if any. Hopefully, there could be some answers to your questions, I simply wouldn’t know where to begin. Welcome, by the way!

Thank you for sharing on something so personal. I think you are correct it usually is a personal or family matter. Unfortunately, the government wants more say in this issue.
California allows any girl to have an abortion, without parental notification. So a 12 year old molested by a teacher or uncle would likely continue to be abused. Obama supports making this national law.

Spyder, Welcome and thank you for sharing your personal story. I’ve also thought about the man’s right in issues of abortion and adoption. My husband feels pretty strongly that the man should be allowed to have more say.

Spyder, let me add my welcome to the others here. Despite the fact that you have had an abortion does NOT make you a bad person. If you believe in God, then I would tell you that God still loves you. But either way I can say that it is not for people to judge. Either pro or con it was your decision.

On the subject of the man; well I don’t know. I personally would like to have a say. Because I would want my child. And as you said, if a woman carries to term and has the baby, the man is obligated to care for them. So why shouldn’t they have a say. But then would you also have to give them the option of requiring her to have an abortion if she didn’t want to? I know what the answer to that would be! That problem has to many questions for me to answer. Way above my brain cell count. But if it takes two to make a baby, maybe it should take two to decide to abort it.

Spyder, unfortunately or fortunately, however uou view it, this is where the “law” or “government” has to get involved if we all want a somewhat civilized society. If you carry to “term” child support has been deemed then answer. If the two adults involved are not legally married then I believe it is the woman’s decision. In my opinion as it should be.

Well written. I can understand you almost feeling forced to write on this, as it seems to come up a lot.

My view is we need to work on the extremist views on both sides. As you said, Roe vs Wade will stand, and the extreme right needs to learn to deal with that without bombing abortion clinics. The left, and especially our commander in chief need to stop pushing abortion without any constraints.

California’s law that they are trying to nationalize is an affront to PARENTS rights. To require an abortion be performed without parental permission or even notification removes a parents right to raise and protect their child and replaces it with a faceless stranger. How do you protect a child from molestation or incest without involving the parents?

Late term abortion should also be addressed. A complete ban? No, but it should become progressively more difficult as the pregnancy approaches term.
Most especially, the partial birth abortion, which Obama supports, is an abomination to any civilized human being. Leave the religious aspects aside and study the procedure for partial birth abortions. Then explain how we can claim to be civilized and China violates human lives.

The best solution, as advocated by Sara Palin, is that this should be a state issue, and the federal government should step back. Works for me, the less government is involved, the less screwed up it will be.

You bring up an interesting point about right-wing extremists bombing abortion clinics (which apparently hasn’t happened for a while thankfully). Bombing an abortion clinic because you feel that abortion is morally wrong and should be illegal is THE MOST HYPOCRITICAL THING YOU CAN DO!

If you truly believe in the sanctity of life, what the hell are you doing trying to kill human beings simply because part of their job is to perform abortions? Yes, their job violates the sanctity of human life, but they themselves are also alive, and by bombing the abortion clinic, you are trying to relieve them of their right to live as a way of protesting the fact that they do not support an unborn child’s right to live? There is NO logic there.

I personally do not like abortion. I think that it is a truly abhorrent form of birth control, and I wish that it never happened. In spite of the fact that I am personally against abortion, I am not going to try to kill someone else because they feel differently on the issue than I do!

I was raised a Catholic, but I have the sense to realize that USW is right, and that Roe v. Wade will most likely NEVER be overturned. Therefore, to me, a reasonable goal is to make abortion safe and legal, and hopefully find ways to minimize the need for it as much as possible and hope that eventually it will become obsolete somehow through new drugs, new inventions, or some other means.

The Catholic Church teaches that people should only be having sex if they are married and prepared to have a family, and that if they do not wish to have a baby they should be abstaining from sex during any time around which the wife is near ovulation for the month. In an ideal world, this would be great. As we all know, the world is FAR from ideal.

I wish that all women AND ALL MEN would do whatever they could to prevent unwanted pregnancy in the first place so that abortion would be extremely rare.

As to saying “we cannot legislate religion”, that is true. However, we do legislate morality all the time, and abortion could be seen as a moral issue as well as a religious one. Obviously we CAN legislate about it, because we do have a law making it legal!

Peter, I agree with that. Especially the bombing part. I am as against abortion as anyone, and I have never understood that. Even trying to look at it from their point of view, it still is just plain idiotic.

Their point I think is, that they are doing what the Law should do. Execute a murderer. But that is just stupid. How many innocent people have been killed just to get an Abortion Doctor? And it’s not their right to be Executioner to begin with. In my view, they are worse than the Doctor they killed.

Agree and would never personally bomb anything. However, I can see where those types of people are coming from. They truly believe that they are protecting the babies by getting rid of the abortion clinics.

All in all, what else are you going to do if you truly feel that people are murdering babies? Again, I am NOT condoning this nor would I ever look to harm anyone intentionally. Just trying to understand the thought process. Because if someone tried to harm my toddler sons, then I would definitely take extremem measures including defending with deadly force. Could not the same be true of my unborn child?

Thanks for a well thought out post. To me it’s more about government in my body than anything else.
I don’t want to start a new thread, but a sort of related topic is heroic measures to save a child which nature aborted (eg premies with multiple problems). Is that fair to the child and to the survival of the species.

USW – very well put together post – I do think we are at a point of no return and I am equally conflicted on the issue, especially as it relates to thinks like Down’s testing. I fear the day science can tell us even more such about the baby and we end up with abortions because some test told us there is a strong likelihood the kid may like the Dallas Cowboys, or may be homosexual, or have the wrong hair color. I know this seems like stretching, but so too was that perception of the Court when they passed Roe v. Wade – I’d be interested to hear anyone with a good Con Law background that can offer perspective in that vein. The thing is – we will never turn back – it is here to stay – now we will only debate nuances and application.

Also – I would only update GA’s criteria to state that:

The mothers life is in danger if the pregnancy is not terminated. —> Two Doctors should have to agree on this – defining what “danger” is can be very subjective

The mother is the victim of a violent rape. —–> drop the word violent

The mother is the victim of an incestuous impregnation. —–> no change

The fetus has died from normal circumstances in the womb. —–> I wouldn’t think this need be addressed under abortion criteria – at that point it is no longer viable

I do not believe that dropping the word violent from the rape category would do any good, as a matter of fact it would do very much harm. I have worked many a case where an individual claimed rape when it turned out to be consensual from the gitgo. An individuals irresponsibility should not be grounds for the arrest and incarceration of another – nor for the termination of the life of a completely innocent victim.

First of all I, would like to mention how interesting it is that we the people have taken a medical term and demonized it:

Per Wikipedia: In medical contexts, the word “abortion” refers to any process by which a pregnancy ends with the death and removal or expulsion of the fetus, regardless of whether it is spontaneous or intentionally induced.

When I was pregnant with my twins I was deliriously happy and in my euphoric state I began researching pregnancy and risks just as many pregnant women do. I was shocked to learn of a much higher percentage of spontaneous abortions or miscarriages than I had expected. I will site two different sources and I found these in less than five minuets so there are surely many others.

“Spontaneous abortion is a very common experience for women. It is estimated that between 25-50% of conceptions spontaneously abort. Researchers do not have an exact figure due to the fact that when this occurs very early on, many women do not know that they were ever pregnant.”http://www.womenshealth.org/a/spontaneous_abortion_common.htm
and

“It is estimated that up to half of all fertilized eggs die and are lost (aborted) spontaneously, usually before the woman knows she is pregnant. Among those women who know they are pregnant, the miscarriage rate is about 15-20%. Most miscarriages occur during the first 7 weeks of pregnancy. The rate of miscarriage drops after the baby’s heart beat is detected.”

Previous to this I had always believe that abortion was wrong and the soul attaches at conception. I also felt I had no right to tell this to another person and was perfectly happy to leave this between them and god when they go to meet him. These numbers staggered me and caused me to question my beliefs. A possibility of 50 percent of all pregnancies are ended naturally…. Could the soul truly be born at the point of conception and half of human souls go straight to heaven without ever being given the chance to live their life here on earth?

I don’t know.. I still question this. I still believe abortion is wrong for me. I also believe that isn’t it kinder to that baby’s soul to allow them to go straight to heaven rather then be born to uncaring or abusive parents to be raised to become abusers themselves. It is a beautiful and naive though that if you prevent abortion automatically there will be more beautiful little babies that will be loved and cared for in the world.

There is a chemical reaction in the brain when humans see puppies or kittens or babies, that makes us atomically coo and love and adore when we see infants. I believe it is that reaction, that makes this such an incredibly heated debate for many people

No? Then why are certain drugs illegal? Let’s say I have a small amount of marijuana, and I am smoking it in the privacy of my own home. Let’s also say I grew it myself, so I didn’t have to go out and buy it from some drug dealer. I am not making anyone else smoke it, I am not going out and driving my car and endangering anyone else, and it is MY body and my supposed right to privacy, right? By the same argument that abortion should be legal, my behavior should be equally legal. In theory, this should go for ANY drug, regardless of how “harmful” that drug is perceived to be, as long as I am doing so in the privacy of my own home and am not engaging in any behavior that would endanger or harm anyone else.

One could argue that I am in some way harming myself, but that is my own choice is it not? Could one not argue that a woman getting an abortion is harming herself as well? It has been documented that women who get abortions undergo physical as well as psychological trauma associated with an abortion regardless of the reason for them having an abortion.

If you want to make the argument that you cannot tell someone else what to do with their own body, you have to be consistent and allow EVERYONE to do whatever they want to their own body, not restrict it just to women who want an abortion- that would be discriminatory.

Actually… you are absolutely right. If a person wishes to tattoo, or pierce or smoke, or do drugs, or end their life. They should be allowed to. Laws about driving under the influence are appropriate because that is endangering others. But if you like to do recreational drugs in your own home, go for it. As long as you are aware that you are harming yourself when you make that choice.

If you argue that abortion should be legal because it is the mother’s body, then logically you would have to argue, at least while she is pregnant, that she SHOULD be able to smoke, drink, do drugs, etc. At the time when the mother is pregnant, the unborn child is still part of HER body, and she has the right to do with her body as she pleases, yes?

Now, once the baby is actually born, the mother would have to stop engaging in activities that could harm the child, because now that the child is born, it is no longer part of her body anymore.

Of course, this leads to lots of babies with fetal alcohol syndrome, crack-baby syndrome, and lots of other problems, but who cares! When the woman was pregnant, she had the right to abuse the hell out of that unborn child, because it was part of her body at that time, and by golly, she can do with her body what she wishes!

You see, this is the fallacy with the whole abortion argument. Killing an unborn child = OK, but harming an unborn child when you have no intent to kill it = bad.

You can’t have it both ways… either the woman can do what she wants with her own body REGARDLESS of whether she is pregnant or not, or she CAN’T do whatever she wants with her own body. Which is it?

I’m grateful to all the posters on this site who debate calmly and logically. It is a far cry from the shrill voices out there. Thanks.

I’m not sure I can understand the stance that you can’t legislate morality. All law, particularly criminal law, is based on morality. Just because the pro-life stance is percieved as a Christian cause does not illegitimize it. Our criminal laws all have a basis in Christianity for one thing. For another thing, why is it that other belief systems refuse Christians the right to an opinion in the public square?

On the specific issue of abortion, my religious tradition teaches that we not only have an after life, but also a pre-existence. In other words we thought, lived, hoped and feared before we were ever born. We were alive, in the spirit, just as we will live in the spirit after we die. Therefore I believe physical life begins at conception. Even a new born baby has a distinct personality. This is because they have already developed a personality before conception.

I personally believe that personal responsibility must trump rights in this case. If you get pregnant accidentally, you are responsible for the consequences (the father ought to be held responsible as well and I think our current laws attempt to enforce this). Adoption is an option that blesses the child and adoptive-parents desperate for a child, besides the mother who wishes to repair her mistake as much as is possible.

There’s a midwife near here who gives free ultra sounds to women comtemplating an abortion. She has performed this service for hundreds, only one mother proceeded with the abortion after seeing that her baby was already a person.

Michelle – am curious then how this approach handles the criteria GA shared? Sorry for the graphic example – but if you were assaulted by a gang and became pregnant then you should be required to carry to full term?

I know that is a more controversial subject than the mother who was stupid or irresponsible, but actually, yes. I can’t see how the sins of the father should demand the life of the child. I would certainly give the baby up for adoption in that case.

I disagree in the case of rape. Forcing the mother to carry to term is not only cruel, but carries the potential of further physical and certainly mental harm. She had no choice in the conception of a child, so why is she forced to carry to term.

Take a quick side walk with me here. If we feel that it is OK to force a raped woman to carry to term, then we are saying she has no right to her own sanity or health. Are we then only a step away from a government program that can force people to get pregnant, or can create test tube babies and then have a draft for women to implant them in? I know this is an extreme statement, but I always default to government is more capable of the extreme than we would like to think.

I agree that govt can become that extreme. But all the same this does not seem to be an issue which allows neutrality. I am just as worried about forced abortion or infanticide, or taxes on multiple children, like China has and does have.

So if a woman who conceived during rape should not be subject to “mental anguish and the physical risks of pregnancy”, then no woman should be subject to the same, for any reason. After all we can not force one persn to face such torture and not another. Therefore the woman who does not want a child can not be condemned to the same “mental anguish and the physical risks of pregnancy”. And, therefore, we can not outlaw abortion.

This argument is consistant. But we do not know what the underlying principle is that supports it.

The underlying concern here is that the woman who is raped did not have a choice in conceiving a child. She was raped. And the mental anguish of a forced pregnancy to term would have a much deeper impact on her than we could expect from a non-rape pregnancy. Again the key fo rme is that she did absolutely nothing to bring this on except run into the wrong guy at the wrong time.

This argument is consistant with Michelle’s other statements, which are based on the principle that human life begins at conception, or earlier. She will have to once again explain where simple existance stops and life begins because I forgot.

My point is her conclusion is consistant with her principle regarding life. Now, is the principle consistant with reality? Is it the core principle or is it supported by another?

If you choose to carry to term that is your choice. Does your principle require you to make others carry to term as well? If so, then you place the value of one human, the baby, over the other, the mother. Is that still consistant with your core principle?

I provide this as an example of how we need to work hard to find the core. I am thinking Michelle that you have spent much time and effort in this search but would like to hear your answers to my last questions.

Ok, first of all I have thought about this a great deal. I used to think abortion was wrong except in cases of rape or when the mother’s life is in danger. Over time I realized this is inconsistent with the value I inherently place on life. I believe life begins at conception, so how could I possibly say the fetus should be protected by law, unless someone else has committed a sin/crime and then the innocent fetus should lose protection under the law? That would be horribly inconsistent.

I feel great sympathy for rape victims. I think rape is nearly the worst crime you can commit against another. But I do not think you can argue that pregnancy and child birth in and of themselves constitute unusual cruelty to the mother (I am the mother of 6 kids so I know whereof I speak).

I assume the cruelty toward the rape victim, others have spoken of, is because of the rape itself then. No doubt having to carry the child would make the pain linger for a longer time. I have not experienced this, I admit, and so I leave the possibility that I am wrong about abortion being wrong in the case of rape. Rape victims need counseling whether they become pregnant or not. I still fail to see however, that it would bring peace to the rape victim if they perpetuated the evil by killing the child. (Remember please that I consider that life begins at conception.)

As for the core value, I think that is whether you believe life has inherent value. If so why?

I do believe life has inherent value, because life comes from God. I see God as the ultimate authority, indeed the only authority that can be relied on to be impartial, just, loving, and perfect. I have never seen any other source that promises these things. You cannot seperate this belief from religion. But all belief is “religion”, if you will, for lack of a better term. Anyone who has thought at all has pondered on the ultimate source of Truth, and accepted or denied that there is one. But I submit that if there is an ultimate truth then one individual’s belief has no effect on Truth. You can only decide where you will stand.

As for cases where the mother’s life in is danger. That I would leave between the parents and God and the doctor. But I agree with another person who commented that two doctors ought to weigh in with their opinion in this case. Is that inconsistent? Maybe. This is a complicated issue, is it not?

Michelle. I said in my post that I didn’t have an answer to Rape and Incest. I believe life begins at Conception. But I could not face a woman and say that whether she had been raped by someone or whether she had been raped by her father or brother, she had to have the baby anyway. I just could not do it.

My Mama and my wife feel as you do. They volunteered too long in that pregnancy center to feel any other way. And both her and my Mama have miscarried. The Life of children is the most sacred thing in this world to them. What I’m talking about though is my own feelings. I just could not do so.

Michelle, Your thoughts are well written. Your position is based on your religious teachings. That’s where legislation is improper, because not all religious teachings are the same. As one religion may not accept abortion for any reason, another religion may accept under any terms. Freedom of religion is a precious right in our country, so how can government legislate when there are opposing religious views of the subject?

Let me understand. Are you saying that religious reasons for a law are fine as long as everyone agrees? For example the laws against theft are acceptable since we all generally agree.

What if you reach a situation where not everyone agrtees that theft is wrong. Do we then change the law?

BF will like that. It sounds like anarchy!

I have a moral obligation to do my best to be sure that not only myself is protected under the law, but also others are protected. We often have the arguement that we are protecting free speech for everyone, not just ourselves. Why are we not allowed to have the arguement that we wish to protect life for everyone, not just for ourselves?

I’m not trying to be argumentative, but moral relativity is not sound. If there is no moral absolute, then there is no morality at all.

Thanks for keeping the old noggin smokin! LOL. I don’t have any real experience with this subject, at anytime in my life. Theft is a law, just seems like many people know it’s wrong, but don’t care that it’s wrong, and do it anyway. I agree, that you have a certain perception of morality based on your religious teachings (I’m not opposed to your perception). I will say this, this is one tough subject that I have never really discussed before, because the views are so divided. Back to what I was getting at. There are many religions being practiced in our country, some that most of us would consider very unusual. If one religion believes that abortion is part of a religious ceremony (I’m really reaching here) wouldn’t legislation against it violate their freedom of religion?

Despite being alittle “out there” today, I guess my point is government needs to let people make decisions on their own, if they are mentally capable.

Yes, but doesn’t there have to be some “moral” line? Otherwise, why not let murder occur without penalty. I’m sure in some religions, murder is entirely acceptable – i.e. human sacrifice. We, as humans living together, have to have some level of “moral” right and wrong.

What if I steal bread to feed to my starving toddler? Is that morally wrong or right? Would you punish me?

What if a man murders my 3-year old child, rapes my wife, and tortures my 5-year old daughter and I kill the sonofa#*(*&? Am I morally wrong or right? Would you punish me?

There is a fundamental difference between the hypotheticals you propose and aborting a fetus. The examples you provide are all crimes because they impact another person’s absolute right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, even if that other person has committed crimes themselves. They don’t have to be viewed in a moral light. The fact that most people’s moral beliefs coincide is beside the point.

The question is when does an embryo/fetus gain the unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Somewhere between, and including, conception and birth. There is no right answer. The decision is individual and belongs with the mother, father, doctor, and their individual beliefs.

But morality cannot be legislated in an “overall concept” manner. You need to treat each scenario on its own merits (and how it relates to reality not personal beliefs) to make sure you comparing an “apple with an apple”, an “orange to an orange” etc.

USW – I need to say I’m another one whose views have somewhat changed on this subject. I used to view it as a “women’s right” issue and could not understand why the government was involved at all. I (naively) believed that women would come to this decision in only the most desparate situations and if after understanding exactly what they were doing (with a waiting period), then yes, they had the right to make that decision.

My concern and tightening of my beliefs come from how loose the rules have become. The use of abortion as birth control and late term abortions are two areas that I have particular concern with. I read an article from a psychologist that worked with women that had abortions and he stated most of us have no idea how many abortions are done for the plain reason that something showed the fetus wasn’t “perfect”. He talked of our “plastic surgery” society, combined with the improved technology for testing the health of the fetus, lead many women to choose abortion rather than have a (possible) less than pefect baby.

I do believe life begins at conception; as a mother of three, I felt very quickly that there was something “live” in me.

So in summary, I guess I was previously pro-choice with no restrictions (foolishly thinking there didn’t need to be any) and now am still pro-choice with tight timelines, waiting periods, parental involvement for minors.

Where do we draw the line as human beings? We currently draw the line on killing other human beings. We call it murder. Why do we do that? What internal functioning tells us that murder is not okay and that the government should punish those that murder another?

We do draw lines in the sand and say “We will not go beyond this point.” If you murder someone, and it was not in self-defense and if you are not mentally unstable and if you didn’t have a good reason, then you are punished by society. Why? Is it our morals, our belief in God, our innate drive to survive as a species, etc.? What is it?

Whatever it is, we all believe in it – murder is wrong except in certain circumstances – self defense, etc. (Personally, the mentally unstable argument to justify murder is absurd to me.) So, why do we have such a large disagreement when it comes to killing unborn human beings? It goes against common morality, it goes against a belief in God, and it certainly goes against our innate drive to survive as a species. It certainly cannot be argued in self defense – the unborn human is not attempting to kill us. A mental instability defense would hold some merit.

I don’t really have the answer to this in my own mind. The argument of the pro-choice crowd simply baffles me. If it is the woman’s choice to kill an unborn human being, then it must hold true that it is my choice to kill another human being and not be punished for it. For their argument to hold any water, the unborn human being must not be a human being. Then what is it? Is it simply a part of the woman’s body? That cannot be true, because a woman cannot generate a baby on her own. It takes yet another human being to add his DNA to the equation in order for conception to occur. So that non-human thing sitting in her womb is not a part of her body, it is the spawned creation of two human beings – not just one.

The lady in the post above stated that the man is simply a sperm donor. Is that so? That man’s DNA is what makes possible the conception. Without it, no conception takes place. So that non-human thing in the womb is as much the man’s offspring as it is the woman’s. So if you’re going to make a law saying that the woman can choose to destroy the non-human thing in her womb, then you had better make it so that the man also has to decide because it is as much his non-human thing and it is the woman’s.

And if the government should not be involved in the discussion of killing unborn human beings, then should it also not be involved in the discussion of killing born human beings?

There are so many holes in the logic of the pro-choice crowd that it amazes me that very few see this.

Well, not everything. Roads being built to aid transportation is, in my mind, a very good governmental function. A common defense that is organized is a good function. Notice that I said “defense” and not “offense”. In my mind, if government would stay to two things it would be best – infrastructure and defense. Beyond that, it’s sticking it’s nose where it doesn’t belong and everything it then touches turns to ash. Just look at education, social security, Medicare, zoning, tax, health care, etc. All these government mandates are incredibly fraudulent and inefficient.

The founding fathers recognized that government was inherently bad. However, they also recognized that some form of government was necessary. The form they came up with is the best attempt in history to create a “limited” government.

What we have today is not a “limited” government. The only real area where I disagree with Black Flag is that some form of “limited” government is necessary.

Roper, a born person is almost universally agreed to possess unalienable rights including life, liberty, etc. Therefore murder is universally considered a crime. The rub with abortion is that it is not universally agreed as to where the embryo/fetus gains those rights. Up until that point it is not murder. Where to draw the line is the question. You make a good case for ‘at conception’. Other’s try to make a case for ‘at birth’ and generally come up short.

Abortion is such a touchy subject, I can understand why you hesitated to write about it here US, but I am glad that you did. When I was 18 I had a miscarriage and it was one of the hardest things that I have ever been through. My body rejected the fetus, that was the explanation that I was given and still it haunted me and still does. That child would be in their 20’s today. Given how hard it was and is for me to deal with a miscarriage I couldn’t deliberately take an unborn life. That being said I also don’t believe that this is something that the government has any business in. This comes down to personal accountability and if the person feels that they are willing and able to live with the consequences of such a decision.

As for this being a Christian issue, it shouldn’t be. I don’t believe that you can legislate morality either. Religion, as it is today, has no business in govenment either. Whatever a person’s religious beliefs they don’t have the right to force those beliefs on others. Religion should be a personal thing and the morality of that religion is something that you have chosen to live by. Would it be great if everyone lived that way? Yes, but the simple fact is that this country has grown and the number of religions has grown as well. There is no longer just Christianity to deal with. Your faith or lack thereof are none of my business just as mine is none of yours. The decisions that a person makes is between them and their God, whoever He may be.

As to abortion and minors, the parent has the right to be notified BEFORE the abortion is performed. If we as parents are held responsible for whether they attend school and can be locked up if they don’t, shouldn’t we have a say in something as monumental as this?

Basically, it ain’t my job to judge! That is something that I leave to a higher power. I only have to be concerned with my faith and whether or not I can live with the decisions that I make. It’s not my job to tell others what to believe or to decide what they can and cannot do with their bodies, and it isn’t the governments job either.

Kristian,
My beliefs are nearly identical to yours. I have been through numerous miscarriages, as well, both as a young adult and during my marriage. As a result, I can not imagine ever intentionally aborting a baby. I’ve never carried a pregnancy to term, and the opportunity to do so would be such a blessing. Having said that, this is how I FEEL. I can’t project my feelings and beliefs on anyone else. When my best friend was faced with becoming a single mother and terrified, I looked at the blessing she was given; she saw a completely different picture. It was her decision to make. I’m grateful now to have a 16 month old “nephew” who aggravates and fascinates us on a constant basis.
I also know a girl who was raped and impregnated the day after her mother’s funeral (to make it more traumatic, her mom had died by commiting suicide) at the age of 16. Who could blame that girl for having an abortion?? She didn’t and has a four year old son. She also didn’t let this act ruin her life, but is doing great things.
How can we judge anyone’s actions? We can’t. At the same time, making abortion illegal is not the answer. If a woman does not want to be pregnant, she’s not going to be. Plain and simple. What our government is able to do is regulate abortion. There is no longer a need for girls to go to back-alley abortion clinics and risk their lives.
Some women do use abortion as birth control, and that’s horrifying. Others do not, and these women live with that choice for the rest of their lives. If they make that decision, though, they can at least have the procedure done safely. They should have that right.

I really hate to comment on this subject as it is not something I have ever had any personal experience with, rather just how I feel/believe. It is a terrible shame that the federal government ever became involved with this. This, in my opinion, should be at the very most at a state level, and further than that, at the local/community level. Subjects as personal as these should never gain a stage in the federal government. It is these very types of subjects that allow the feds to divide the population…once that is done, the only thing left is to conquer. They are in the conquer stage right now. We need to wake up and see this for what it is…

The abortionists, however, wish to debate development of a human and how much time a human has been human to determining a human.

Most of us are pretty clear that an adult – a stage of development of a human – is human.

Most of us are pretty clear that a teenager – a stage of development of a human – is human.

Most of us are pretty clear that a child – a stage of development of a human – is human.

Most of us are pretty clear that a toddler – a stage of development of a human – is human.

Most of us are pretty clear that a baby – a stage of development of a human – is human.

Then, bizarrely, abortionists wish to declare that other stages of development are – suddenly – not human.

And you know my mantra – consistency.

The abortionists cannot provide a consistent set of determinations to prove their position. It is moving goal posts.

As soon as you see the inability to hold a consistent position, you know there is something wrong, somewhere, with the argument being presented. It is possible that the argument maybe simply incomplete and not necessarily wrong – however, as long as it is inconsistent, the argument must be discarded.

What if we refuse to discard the inconsistent argument?

If one accepts an inconsistent argument, then one must also accept that the point of argument is arbitrary.

Therefore, if you accept the abortionists inconsistent argument about selecting some point in human development – you must accept that the argument could say “adulthood is when you become human – and it is legal to ‘abort’ anyone who has yet to develop into an adult”

It must be clearly understood that this is as equally valid statement as any of the abortionists – if you accept any part of their inconsistent argument.

Pretty dangerous, huh?!

Thus, we must discard the inconsistent argument of the abortionists attempting to use development as a determination of humanity.

Historically,human life was ‘recognized’ and accepted at birth – as historically, the science of understanding human development was incomplete. However, much of the laws of antiquity held that the birth as the time of when human life began, and for most of human civilization this was very consistently applied. It was possible to be very consistent with this application as birth was a specific and well-defined event. Every person on this blog has had a birthday – and the vast majority knows, possibly to the minute, of when that occurred for themselves.

Because this position was held consistently in antiquity – historically, abortion was generally accepted in most ancient cultures.

If this position was consistent – even today – both in philosophy and throughout government law, this debate on abortion would have not even started.

But it isn’t – that darn inconsistency simple screws up everything. There are laws on the book that says killing a fetus is murder. There are people, including abortionists, that believe this right.

Then there are laws that say killing a fetus it is not murder. There are people – including many of those that accepted the above paragraph – who believe this is right as well.

Welcome to confusion in arguments.

So, for those that cleave to ‘where does human life start’ as their argument for/against abortion – let me add some clarity.

You have only two choices.

1) At conception.
2) At birth.

These two determinations are definitive – that is, there are specific definitions about these two specific events that provides no doubt whatsoever on the matter.

Neither choice is a matter of development, and therefore, the subjective nature of trying to determine ‘when is it a human baby, or child, or adult’ is removed.

Either choice exists by definition.

Therefore,
If the choice is (1) – then abortion is murder.

If the choice is (2) – then any death of a fetus by any means is not murder.

The problem with USWep’s attempt to figure out when ‘life exists on its own’ does not wreck these choices.

USWep’s attempt is fraught with potential abuse.

It is an easy argument to claim that at no time does human life ‘exist on its own’.

We require something external to ourselves – at all times – to live and exist. Any argument regarding this is merely subjective and opinion – and most certainly not definitive.

Be very cautious in using more complex hypothetical scenarios, such as USWep’s ‘drunk woman’ scenario as an attempt to determine a principle.

This is a backwards way of trying to figure out what is moral and what is not, and almost always ends up with the wrong answer.

Before any discussion can occur on more complex circumstances, one must first be very clear about their position on simple circumstances.

If one cannot even find their mind on a subject when the circumstance is “cut and dry”, it is impossible to find one’s mind on something even more complex.

So don’t do it.

Stick with the cut and dry circumstance first – with incredible clarity – before you engage in attempting to figure out the complexities. You don’t have to worry – these complex issues won’t run away or disappear before you get to them….

Amen brother!! You have such a way with words. The abortionists’ argument is illogical and full of holes. A new life begins when the DNA of a male human combines with the DNA of a female human – period, end of story, see ya later. It is then your individual choice after that if you want to kill that new human being or not.

By the way BF, I’ve thought a lot on your beliefs based on reading your posts for several months now. How do you get around the “murder” argument for the rule of governmental law? Don’t we have to have some rule of law in place specifically for murder?

I fear you have overreached BF’s point. You need to read again and really take in the conclusion. You will then answer your own question.

You and others were around when BF and I had the discussion about the need to discover the foundation for your principles, the corner stone if you will. It is the absolute that can no longer be reduced. It is not morality. It is what determines the morality that you select, or it determines if your current morlity is consistent with reality.

I am afraid my dear sir you have erred greatly in your discertation. I, as an experienced parent, can tell you with full knowledge and confidence that you have mischaracterized the teenager stage of development as human.

Good post… one request, let’s refrain from using the term “abortionists”. We are trying to keep it civil and without stoking any emotional fires. That is certainly a term that is a bit inflammatory. I am not interested in semantics and I know that you can provide a logical argument as to why it is the right term to use. But I am really concerned with allowing the debate to get emotional and then cross over into nasty.

BF,
Well said! I agree with your logic 100%. Logic doesn’t always work or apply. I have a preacher for a friend. He and I share a view that the morning after pill is a good thing and should be allowed. We both realize this is condoning murder.

Given, as US stated you will not do away with Roe vs Wade.
And as you advocate, the government will not go away if we ignore them.
You are left addressing the gray area.

My oldest son was the night my mother was remarried; my daughter our lifelong souvenir from a Hawaiian vacation; and my youngest son after an office party. All planned, but embarrassingly, all with the help of some good Wisconsin brew!

I have remained silent on this issue every time it comes up, but since it is the focus today and everyone is being quite civil and thoughtful, I will make an attempt at addressing some underlying issues. I view this issue as being like finding the core of an onion. If one peels an orange you will find the flesh underneath, nice and orderly. Remove the juicy fruit and you will find the pith or core of the orange, right there in the middle where it belongs. Not the onion. You peel away one layer only to find another and another and another. Not only different layers but layers that are connected by thin membrane at their juncture. And when you get to the center there are two larger layers with a sprout that leads to the surface, also made of layers. So now that we have all had our Zen lesson lets dive in.

Lets start with Ray’s question regarding Constitutional law. This all starts with Article VI, also called the VI amendment (aka., Bill of Rights). “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable casue, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” It also involves Article X, the tenth amendment (states powers). I will not restate here as we discussed this earlier.

This all starts with a state passing laws regarding accepted sexual behavior between consenting adults. Eventually someone sees two someones doing something inside their home that is illegal. After a while the case comes to the Supreme court during the new period of liberal court views on what “living document” means (aka activist court). The supremes decide that the state law amounts to violation of Article VI as the search of the home was done by the someone passing by and no warrant could be issued to search an act, etc etc. I don’t recall all the legal justification but the one that becomes important is the establishment through their wording of “a right to privacy”. You see, no such right exists in the Constitution. It was made up out of thin air by the Supreme Court.

As time goes by, quite a bit of time actuall, there comes another law suit against a state that has made abortion illegal (Roe v Wade). The Supremes eventually get to decide and are faced with that terrible Article X which clearly puts this in the purview of the State. Ahhhh….except that the prior courts have established “a right to privacy” under Article IV. So they use this as the constitutional basis for overturning all state laws banning abortion. Their decision is poorly constructed it then creates years of new regulations and further refinements through the courts as to what nuance of can’t control is not actually control. THIS WAS AND REMAINS VERY BAD LAW, BASED JUST ON THE LAW ITSELF.

Now for the rest of the story, law wise that is (not an oxymoron). Many have forgotten that this very difficult moral issue was slowly getting resolved as it should, by the slow and deliberate movement of society to reach a consensus. The number of states outlawing abortion was declining. Those legalizing it were putting on controls and regulations to protect the patients and the interests of others involved. Then the Supremes come along and kicked over the cart. Effectively slapping everyone in the face who was struggling with the moral issues. THIS WAS AND REMAINS VERY BAD LAW BECAUSE THE COURT INTERRUPTED THE PROCESS BY WHICH A FREE SOCIETY PEACABLY RESOLVES THESE TYPES OF ISSUES.

Now for truth in lending and full disclosure. I am not a constitutional lawyer nor certified scholar. I have studied the const. and many legal issues involving the document. I do discuss these matters with a certifiable const. lawyer/scholar and have listened to one lecture on the above topic. The case I just made is a paraphrase of his lecture. I had reached the same conclusion regarding the letter of the law but had never considered the social aspect of how an activist court can disrupt the natural evolution of society, thus creating decades of turmoil, anger and mistrust. Not to mention giving the poly-ticks a great tool to keep us at each other’s throats.

And, USW, this is for you. There absolutely is a constitutional basis for overturning Roe v. Wade. It is perhaps stronger than the basis that created the decision. The real fact is that even todays “conservative courts” are not likely to overturn precident, especially on politically charged issues that have no real super majority. Remember our two latest supremes kept referring to how important precidence is when reviewing law when ever questioned on Roe v Wade. This code for “forgetta bout it” or “no worries”.

Now this does not answer any questions, it just removes layer one. The first step in better understanding all the factors affecting the issue itself. Lets digest a little before taking the next bite.

This is a reply from Bethany. She was unable to get it to post so she sent it to me via email and asked me to post it:

First of all I, would like to mention how interesting it is that we the people have taken a medical term and demonized it:

Per Wikipedia: In medical contexts, the word “abortion” refers to any process by which a pregnancy ends with the death and removal or expulsion of the fetus, regardless of whether it is spontaneous or intentionally induced.

When I was pregnant with my twins I was deliriously happy and in my euphoric state I began researching pregnancy and risks just as many pregnant women do. I was shocked to learn of a much higher percentage of spontaneous abortions or miscarriages than I had expected. I will site two different sources and I found these in less than five minuets so there are surely many others.

“Spontaneous abortion is a very common experience for women. It is estimated that between 25-50% of conceptions spontaneously abort. Researchers do not have an exact figure due to the fact that when this occurs very early on, many women do not know that they were ever pregnant.”http://www.womenshealth.org/a/spontaneous_abortion_common.htm
and

“It is estimated that up to half of all fertilized eggs die and are lost (aborted) spontaneously, usually before the woman knows she is pregnant. Among those women who know they are pregnant, the miscarriage rate is about 15-20%. Most miscarriages occur during the first 7 weeks of pregnancy. The rate of miscarriage drops after the baby’s heart beat is detected.”

Previous to this I had always believe that abortion was wrong and the soul attaches at conception. I also felt I had no right to tell this to another person and was perfectly happy to leave this between them and god when they go to meet him. These numbers staggered me and caused me to question my beliefs. A possibility of 50 percent of all pregnancies are ended naturally…. Could the soul truly be born at the point of conception and half of human souls go straight to heaven without ever being given the chance to live their life here on earth?

I don’t know.. I still question this. I still believe abortion is wrong for me. I also believe that isn’t it kinder to that baby’s soul to allow them to go straight to heaven rather then be born to uncaring or abusive parents to be raised to become abusers themselves. It is a beautiful and naive though that if you prevent abortion automatically there will be more beautiful little babies that will be loved and cared for in the world.

There is a chemical reaction in the brain when humans see puppies or kittens or babies, that makes us atomically coo and love and adore when we see infants. I believe it is that reaction, that makes this such an incredibly heated debate for many people

USW, I read two things at the start of you piece and believe it or not, you and I are in total agreement. 1) abortion is not a political issue and 2)Roe versus Wade will never,ever be overturned. I will admit I did not read the rest of your “work” because to me to debate beyond that makes no sense to me. My wife laughs at me all the time because I tell her all the time “I am a simple man and like things that way”. I believe in living in the present as simply and realistically as I can. I believe that too much debate becomes a distraction and takes too many people away from simple but sound solutions. And this topic has certainly done that and more. The only thing I would add is that I firmly believe that this topic has done as much to tear apart the Republican Party as any other you can point to. Thanks for delving into the topic, even though you did not want to.

Dear C. Fox: You said “I believe that too much debate becomes a distraction and takes too many people away from simple but sound solutions.”

Herein lies the difference between you and some of us that is the source of more heated discussions in the past. You see, “debate”, that is real honest debate not yelling and screaming, may impede “simple” solutions but it definetly does not impede “sound” solutions. Expediency usually prevents truly “sound” solutions, which are those that actually work for a longer period of time.

I do not intend to divert the discussion here. I offer this as I think one should take the opportunity to clarify past experiences should the chance arise during other conversations. We can now take this with us in future discussions.

JAC, I just believe that “debate” when it gets to a totally subjective point in the conversation is a total waste of time and, more often than not, causes enemies and then no solution can be found. On the other hand, I always try to have a good day. You do the same.

We have reached agreement. A prolonged debate based on purely subjective, ie., emotion or whim, is usually pointless. On the other hand, if we had never challenged those whose principles are purely subjective we would never have progressed as a human race. We would still be worshipping the fire in our cave.

Enemies are made in such debate due to violation of the second prime directive: “Hard on issues, soft on people”

This is a quality and respectful forum, and thank you all for that. It is not always easy to stay rational, with such subjects.
Abortion is complex. Our attitudes about it are always conflicted, unless we are mindless idealogs.
How we look at the subject, partially determines our direction and attitude.
Religion
Government
Interest of Mandkind
Protection of offspring
Protection of Women
Attitude toward rights vs. responsibilities
Consistency in what constitutes justifiable homicide.
Agendas other than abortion (such as eugenics.)
Protection of bureaucratic jobs and grant funding for a cause.
Need to be in control of lives and events of others (psychological issues)

With all of that in play, how can we all agree at all?
We can only ask what drives our determinations.
Right vs. wrong morality; Guilt and shame issues; Promescuity advocacy; Law enforcement issues (killing convicted murders vs. aborting a living fetus)
So, we all go on shouting about “why each other is wrong and has a twisted view”….yet, measured by the SAME constructs, we would most likely find some kind or rational understanding of practical living in reality, scientific capabilities in medicine; religious beliefs in a world equally filled with non-religious but equal citizens; zealotry controls in favor of compassionate understanding of life issues.

The role of government in the issue seems to have been part and parcel of the animosity. The advocacy activists have polorized groups against each other via emotional reasoning campaigns. Whenever someone takes the role of telling others what THEY must do, then THEY must also carefully examine the activists’ true agenda.

I admit conflicts when I take the emotional route. But my rational route says that each case deserves careful consideration prior to making “one size fits all” absolute rules.

We cannot go on debating this in courts and in churches without forever facing culture and rights conflicts of epic proportions.

Rufus: Societies usually share certain core values. Some call these meta-values. The resolution to this issue lies in finding the meta-values beneath it. There is something the vast majority of American share that is a basis for agreement or consent. Note, I used consent not consensus or agreement. It is consent that allows so many divergent views to exist in one place without violence.

If there is no meta-value then we will eventually have to segregate ourselves into two groups or many populations of the two groups. Not necessarily a good thing if we want to preserve the good ol US of A.

JAS,
Thanks for the thoughtful comment. Seeking to discover AMERICA’s meta-values is in itself complex. I can see meta-values in the so-called founding fathers, and in fact, many of them disagreed with each other’s sacred values. Some believed in slavery and ownership of people, some believed in the right to acquire the lands of indiginous people by force, others did not. Some held loyalty to their land of origin’s religions and governance, others did not. Even the ten commandments did not always govern the true individual values of those who formed our nation’s codifications of law. In fact, most of those were highly contested, and agreed upon often through deep compromise. A compromised meta-value seems like an oxymoron to me, yet they had to happen in order for America to create a society able to life and prosper together.

A nation so founded upon the freedom of individuality for all citizens, and the personal rights of such individuality, as is America…has a tough time ever having a true set of meta-values beyond “I will not kill you and take your stuff, if you will not kill me and take my stuff.” When anyone begins to take the job of placing group societal controls over such Constitutionally protected individualism, the slope is pretty slippery. That does not mean at all that debate and co-ercion have not been at play over the last 250 years. And therein lies part of the rub. Whenever I start feeling like I have given more to a compromise than the other game to me, then I begin to dislike the bargain and look for ways around my obligations. We are deep into that circumstance today. Compounding the issue, is the huge difference in cultural and sociatal backgrounds of new immigrants and their own value and familial systems.

So, like the Isrealis…we may be doomed to debate forever, and occasionally stop long enough to actually do some good somewhere sometime.

The founders did not compromise their core meta-values. No one can compromise a meta-value and reach “consent”. Compromise is another word for surrender or I lose. Consent requires that the values of all concerned are addressed to some degree. Thus what we normally think of as a compromise is really saying I agree to this decision because I can live with it, ie., consent. Consensus is agreement. I don’t have to agree, I only have to be able to live with it because it does not violate a core value that is more important than the one being tested by granting my consent.

Back to the founders. Their shared meta-value was the creation and preservation of a new country with all states included. They believed many smaller nations could not survive and only by uniting and staying united could they protect the freedoms they had fought so hard to win. They did compromise on other very key values, such as slavery. Those same values we consider core today but were only next to the core in their time.

I happen to believe that it is time we revisit that core meta-value, and its adjoining layers, to see if there is an answer to today’s debates that preserves the USA as an entity. Having a simple majority run over the rest is not the answer.

By the way, scholarly types have studied US citizens for decades on these values and Americans do in fact have a set of shared Meta-Values. Interestingly enough one of those has been a feeling of sympathy or empathy toward those we perceive as the underdog. Americans also have an extremely strong sense of Justice or fair play. Now think how that value is manipulated to get all kinds of programs and policies approved that violate our other values.

Regarding immigrants. I have not seen these types of studies in recent years but in the 80’s and early 90’s most immigrants shared the core American values, that is why they came here. Most adopted the remaining values shortly after immigrating.

We do share, at least most of us share, some core values that make us Americans. We just need to work harder at finding them.
Best Wishes
JAC

I do not agree with abortion but do not condone anyone that does. The legislature of abortion is absurd. It should be the right of the woman to determine what she wants to do, PERIOD! She will have to answer to her God not anyone else. Another power move for the Government!! Now you all watch this topic closely. Think about it…Embryonic Stem Cell research, Abortion Legislature…this is just another distraction because this is such an emotional and sensitive subject. I might sound a little looney but this will be much bigger than just abortions. Soon we will be like our BFF China…being told how many kids we can have.

A very good point, and one I had missed. My father had his heart treated overseas with stem cells harvested from his blood. It was successful and has helped him measurably. I have never understood the push for embryonic stem cells, as they can be harvested from the placenta and cord.

But if they can dehumanize abortions, the embryonic stem cells could be a big business.

Many of the various laws that allow prosecution for murder of a fetus when the mother is killed were supported by the “pro-life” groups and the republican legislatures in states where they controlled the state houses. In other cases the courts used older laws to create the new interpretation, or laws from other states. These have been implemented in response to Roe v Wade as a mechanism for potential legal challenge. As have laws recognizing humans at conception.

I am not making a case for or against conception vs. birh here.

I am simply showing you that the laws used in the hypotheticals raised earlier are in fact connected to the issue. You can not use another law to argue support for or against abortion when the law itself was promulgated to undermine the issue itself. That would be a circular argument.
This is part of what BF is warning about above.

Ok. Like US, I really don’t even want to discuss this. I said my piece a couple of times and like he said, I am one of those who’s mind won’t be changed. Also, I know from experience how emotional a topic it can be. Just ask my Mama or my wife. They woked in a pro-life pregnancy center where they talked and counseled to young mothers. Thing was, the pro-choice side was always trying to shut the center down, saying that they were counseling the mothers NOT to have abortions. Well hello!! Of course they were. “Pro-Life” pregnancy center!!

I am against abortion. To me, abortion is murder. Period. If I had a daughter, and she insisted on one, I would do all in my power to stop her. If she did it anyway it would cause irreparable damage to my relationship with her. However, I don’t feel that would be a problem because I would also raise her to be against it.
Why do I feel this way? Partly my Beliefs. Also my Upbringing. And also after seeing pictures of aborted babies.(and on this I will only say I think that if someone saw the ones I saw, it might indeed change their mind.) I think that the woman needs to think about the consequences of sex before they get pregnant. Failing that, if she gets pregnant, abortion should not be an option of birth control. And here is the crux of the thing. Abortion is being used as a form of birth control. Why, in my opinion, would anyone call that a woman’s right?

But I also don’t think Roe v. Wade will ever be overturned. I think the Feds are wrong, but still don’t see a change ever taking place. Especially now. I think it should be left to the States to decide. If they want to outlaw it, it should be their call. If a woman still wants it. Let them go to a state where it is still legal. We all know there would still be States where it would (CA comes to mind). To my mind, the people should decide this issue. Not Nationally, but by State. I would still think it wrong, but would be prepared to accept what the Majority said. And yes, I know some would not. But it won’t happen anyway.

Abortion should not be allowed. Legal issues such as Rape, Incest, and health of the Mother is something that I have no answer for. I know that sounds weak, but let me explain this. I connot say that I could force a woman to have a child by Rape or Incest. I just can’t. This is because we start getting into the mind of the Mother. What would that do to her mind? In a lot of cases having the child would be as bad as the crime of the impregnation itself. I am simply not prepared or knowledgeable enough to say.
On the Mother’s Health. I feel that there is too broad a definition given for that argument. My question would be: Will the Mother die from having the baby? If the definition is so broad you could drive a truck through it, then that is too much. For me personally to agree, it would have to be a matter of life or death. I also think Ray’s suggestion has merit on this. 2 or maybe a panel of Doctor’s.

Should the mother be charged with Murder? Or say Voluntary Manslaughter, if Murder would be too harsh? Well let’s start with a hypothetical situation first. Say it has been left to the States to decide since this would be the only way for this question to matter anyway. If the woman in question has an Abortion in a State where it is legal, then No. It doesn’t matter if the state she is from allows it or not. Other Interstate Laws are already too intertwined to make a distinction like that. But if she has one in a State where it is illegal, then yes she should. If it is Illegal in that State then the State Law should be upheld. Otherwise, what’s the point of the Law? Others have gone into the issue of a double standard of killing a pregnant woman so I will leave that alone. But I do agree it’s the same thing, just different views.

My view on abortion is partly religious and partly not. I know 3 women who have had abortions and all say they will regret it to the day they die. I am not an idiot though. I know some wouldn’t give it a second thought. I know 1 of those too. She uses abortion as birth control. Has had 3. A true walking example of why it should not be allowed for that purpose.

Doctors should also not be forced to do Abortions. Nor should the government pay for them. Forcing a Doctor to do one is just flat wrong! I myself would quit being a Doctor first. And there are Doctors out there that have stated the same thing. There are plenty of them out there who don’t have that conscience problem so let them go let them do it. The government should not pay for them for the same reason. Forcing me to pay for something I don’t agree with is wrong.

I have to pay for enough I don’t agree with already! LOL

My wife and I suffered through a miscarriage of twins. She wasn’t but a couple of months along, but my wife was devastated. Almost as bad as if they had been born and died. I didn’t think it had gotten to me that bad until I started talking to my Mama about it and broke down and cried. My wife named them both even though we had no way of knowing sex or anything. She says (and I believe) we’ll see them in Heaven. Every April 20th she remembers them. And no, it’s not fun with her right now. That was 11 years ago Sunday.

So maybe you can see a little of why I feel the way I do. I’m sorry if I meandered through this, but I’m trying to work at the same time, and I’m getting a little distracted by it. I didn’t have time to sit and put it down in order and I may have missed one or two things. Please don’t take offense. This is MY view and I know that others feel differently. I don’t take offense with your view. I don’t judge. That is for God to decide. And if you don’t believe in God, well, that is your problem. And of course your right.

I am quite pleased to see everyone discussing it civilly. I was quite worried. I should have given more credit to this group of regular commenters than I did. Of course there are a couple yet to weigh in and one or two of them may be explosive. But thus far, I am glad I did the article and gave people the forum to discuss things with respect. It eases my mind so that I may find I can do some other topics I was avoiding.

The truest and most pertinent thing you said was that Roe v. Wade would never be overturned and that no one will ever convince the other side to switch viewpoints (though Jane Roe herself did, interestingly).

Almost all women who professed to never wanting children, reverse themselves and cannot believe they actually held that view.

My wife was one of them, and she claims I saved her from committing the biggest mistake in her life.

My wife had so convinced everyone in her life that she would never have kids, her own mother didn’t believe the ultrasound and thought all of this was a huge April fool’s joke — that ended the day grandma held her granddaughter.

My wife could not imagine life, now, without her child.

Roe is no different, now having children – her retrospection, knowing what she knows now, she would have made a different choice.

I am a survivor of an attempted abortion …. of my grandmother upon my mother.

My grandmother, as a teenager, lived in a part of Europe that was overrun by armies, over and over again, during WW1 – and then again during the Russian Revolution. She was very beautiful – you can imagine the rest.

After she came to the New World with her new husband, she was very messed up mentally.

My grandmother aborted at least one, perhaps more, by herself.

Attempting to abort my Mom, she became seriously, and nearly fatally, sick from infection. Grandma barely survived, and so did Mom.

My Mom’s birth was the worse day in the life of my grandmother.

For the next 15 years, my grandmother seriously, and nearly fatally, abused my Mother physically – breaking nearly every bone in my mother’s body and including tortures of being scalded and burned alive on the stove and with irons and other implements.

It ended abruptly one day when my mother found she grew stronger than my grandmother.

When I was born, something disintegrated inside the mind my grandmother.

What ever demon possessed her, disappeared and as a penance to my Mother, my Grandmother was the most specular, loving, caring, attentive, and never, ever did she raise her voice or act with even a breath of anger. All my memories of my Grandmothers are absolutely idyllic and perfect. Given the torture (which I learned only after the death of my grandmother) – I am amazed that my mother trusted my grandmother to care for me.

My grandmother became terminally sick, and my mother over a couple of years, tended to my grandmother hourly, faithfully and lovingly.

A few hours before she died, I visited my grandmother. She had been slipped into a coma and was expected to pass away within a few hours. My mom whispered into the ear of my grandmother than I was there – and my grandmothers eyes exploded open – the first time in days – and she whispered my name while looking at me intensely, as I held her hand. After a brief minute or so, she closed her eyes, and passed away an hour or so later.

I do not know what regrets my grandmother may have had – but I am sure she was very happy she avoided one.

After reading this, I now know that you and I have a lot more in common than I ever would have guessed. Actually, your mother and I have something in common.

The man whose name is on my birth certificate is not my father, and I suffered very much up until the time my Mother got the guts enough to divorce that animal.

Just because someone is abused as a child does not mean that they have to be a child abuser themselves. I was in my forties before I learned why I was beaten so much back then. Knowing that that animal was not my father made me one happy man!

I glad that this is a debate that is occuring that is rational and civil. I have gone back and forth on this topic most of my adult life. My beliefs make me lean toward pro-life, but understand that abortions do happen in this country. That law will never overturned. I do believe that life starts at conception. But I also am a big believer in sex education. If we teach kids and adults about all the birth control, and teach them throughly about their bodies. Of course I know this doesnt work on eveyrone. Their are people who are going to have sex, and not think of the afterfact. I do believe that women in situations whose lives are in danger, or have been raped/incest have a right to have the choice to abortion. But something else that has troubled me as much as this issue is that the responiblity that 90% of the time falls right on the womens head. I know way too many men that when a child is made that they assume that they will pay child support but the living arragements are solely on the mom. I realize that this by no means covers all men. But if the mother does not want the child after the birth, I have never seen the the courts make the father take custody of the child. I see that we need to address this issue as a dual problem. We need to have both people held accountable for this child. I believe if men are held equally responible that this will also change the face of the usage of birth control also. This is a very tough topic across the board for everyone I believe.

Okay, I am new to this blog…… The civil debating is wonderful to see…….. My struggle with abortions is not with God (that is personal) or with a pro-choice” it’s my choice thing”….. it’s the fact that a few folks think it is their right to tell my two daughters that they can use abortion as a form of birth control in public /private middle schools and now they want younger children included as well. I believe we need to teach our children to refrain from sexual encounters not only due to STD but the emotional ramifications too, however, that hasn’t worked 100% either, so I won’t hide my head under a big rock and hope they don’t get pregnant…… I will take them to a doctor myself……. On the flip side, not every parent is willing to do all that for their children……. this is just one problem to this issue that needs a solution that doesn’t include abortion as the number one birth control choice and also includes the practice of refraining and safe forms of birth control available. Just my opinion as a parent of two daughters and one son …….

Yes, the burden of children does fall on women – but that is nature and biology. I believe it is vital for all women of age to understand this fact perfectly.

No amount of government force will change human biology – so no woman should expect that government violence forcing men to care for their children will work in the long run. It will distort and warp everything around it – including wanton blow-back violence from the father upon the mother and children. In the end, if the father does not willing wish to support the children, the father will probably run away anyway, leaving the mother by herself. So nothing in this matter actually changes, except now it is now more complex with the government’s horrific heavy hand all wrapped up in it too.

If a woman cannot handle children on her own – she should not have them. If she is lucky to find a male that will cooperate with her in raising them, she should count herself very lucky.

The entire responsibility of procreation rests solely on the woman. Harsh, yes, but sorry, get angry at the Creator, not me.

Once a woman accepts this fact, then she must deal with it, one way or another. It is her voluntary choices, and she is solely and ultimately the only one responsible for them.

I’m going to have to disagree with you just slightly here. Procreation is not soley the woman’s responsibility. If that were true, men wouldn’t be necessary for that procreation. We can’t make a baby on our own, we don’t have that ability. As to the father’s willingness or unwillingness to accept responsibility for that child, you are absolutley correct.

Human males have very different instincts regarding children then women. This results in very different actions and attitudes.

It is not necessary for men to be responsible for children – it is, though, for women.

Depending on the nature of the relationship with a woman, a man’s instinct takes two – very distinct – forms.

1) Wild oats – hit and run – whatever quaint description that may come to mind.

2) Stay and Protect at all costs.

Both courses are instinctual – a way for the male to project himself into the future – either by making as many as possible copies of himself or by protecting the very few, select copies of himself.

For me, much to my surprise, was (2). At the time of the birth of my child, I was able to project myself internally into a “3rd person” watching myself act – whoa! What a grizzly bear!

During the routine after-birth attendance by nurses, doing their jobs, the feelings of RAGE …”STAY AWAY FROM MY CHILD!” – I felt like a male gorilla pounding his chest and roaring his displeasure of too many people mulling around and maybe threatening my newborn!

Obviously, I wasn’t about to go anywhere from her, so my “Stay and Protect” instinct overwhelmed the “Wild Oats” instinct, and remains such.

Trying to ‘force’ responsibility on “Wild Oat” instincted men is futile.

There is no need to force responsibility on the “Stay and Protect” instincted men.

What’s tough, I guess, for women is men don’t have a sales tag tied to their….(you know what)… letting you know who is who.

On the whole, I agree with you, but I fear it is a growing trend. I see a large number of parents, especially single mothers, who regard school, church or any activity as a drop off babysitting service.
If they ever had a nurturing gene, it is well repressed.
A portion of this is cultural, if our society abandons the consequences and responsibility of creating a child, what is left to value?

I agree with Kristian and I’ve stated before, God’s justice will take care of the injustices ultimately. I also agree with BF in a way though. Women will carry the burden of child care in this world because of biology, but again, men, God’s justice . . .

In a battle with GA and others, a point of argument regarding rights is that I can do whatever I please, so long as it does not impose upon others.

In other words, my presence in GA’s society changes nothing in GA’s society. As I do not impose, nothing for him changes – I can be there or not be there, and GA society knows no difference. Interestingly, he does not believe that he should show the same attitude toward my kind…but that is another blog.

A woman with child is effectively operating in the same way. The child is unknown to society until its birth (or in Christian antiquity, their baptism … and I raise it purposely for a later point). Until the child is known, there is no change upon society.

Thus, with ignorance that the child exists, no one – save one – can offer respect for human rights.

Therefore, the choice to respect human rights and its life rests solely on the discretion of the mother up until the child is known to society – at its birth or at its baptism.

(In antiquity, baptism was actually the date on note for the child’s start of life. Many times the birth date was not recorded at all, only the baptism day which may have occurred a few months after birth. Many babies did not make it to baptism day, and therefore, did not exist in the eyes of the Church, with all the implications that implies).

(Such as Yugoslavia and Croatia… as long as other nations did not recognize Croatia, the war was an internal issue to Yugoslavia and not the concern of any other country.

As soon as countries recognized Croatia as a new country, it changed from a ‘civil war’ into a ‘war between nations’, and the rest of the nations did have concerns and was no longer an internal issue of Yugoslavia any longer)

I’m glad I asked this question to me first – because this is a hard one – I will have to ponder a bit so to be consistent, because right now, it is “Yes” and it is “No” – but the reasons for the difference are not well defined.

I think it depends on which “tag” he has on his ?#@$! It’s like you said BF, if the father is one who wishes to protect, then yes, I think he has a say but if he is the “wild oat” type, then maybe not so much. I think it would depend on his motivation.

For a human being to be able to exercise the full extent of their rights and life, they need at times other people’s aid and expertise.

This aid, in some circumstances, requires the helpful person to fully align themselves perfectly with the same goals as the need, and avail themselves of the same rights of that needing person to enable proper aid and representation.

We see this principle between lawyer/client confidentiality. A lawyer cannot defend his client while ignorant. The lawyer must perfectly align himself with the goal of his client, and therefore, come to represent or become his client so to represent and protect his client’s rights, while not incriminating his client or risking the lawyers standing in society.

Same as with a doctor and Mother.

The Mother must be able to trust the doctor and have the doctor perfectly align himself with her goal – whatever that may be – without any condemnation or judgment upon the doctor. If we do not grant this to the doctor, we are harming ourselves for the same prohibition of alignment will prevent doctors from aiding us with their expertise in the time of our need.

Good question. The birth rate in the US is at an all time high, largest numbers from African American and Hispanic single mothers. My bet is the birth rate stays high, but the abortion rate will climb.

JAC,
I don’t remember where I came across that, put it at 90% confidence and will source and verify in the am. That being the birth rate only.
Conclusion is a wild A– guess that I stand by.
I think I am thinking our society as a whole, is devolving–loss of morals, etc.

Again an emotionally charged accusation. For many who have the procedure done, it is not done because it is “convenient”. We are trying to avoid the emotionally charged responses and have a civilized debate here. Thanks for your thoughts, but please try to not let emotional language work its way in.

You suffer (blessed!) with the “Protect” gene. It sometimes seems to get in the way of my desires to globe trot like in my olden days – but that small smile and bright eyes is far more valuable and worth dying for 🙂

I’ve worked in law enforcement for several years and the first place I was assigned was the county jail – in the infirmary. I had never been in an environment like that before and so I was a little naive about a lot of things.

About a week after I started working there we had an inmate who was about 4 months pregnanat come back from the doctor and I had to escort her in the exam room while the doctor gave her the clinic follow up instructions. I was shocked as the doctor was instructing her on how to start taking the pre-abortion medication and that the “procedure” was going to be in a couple of days.

This is just another example of our tax dollars at work providing on-demand abortions. I asked her why she was doing this and she told me that she wasn’t going to be pregnant in jail. When I told her that she was going to have really good medical care while in there, she didn’t care.

Needless to say by the end of the week she had the abortion and so I read the clinic notes (very sad). The baby was a boy, perfectly formed – just not old enough to survive outside the womb. That said, I definitly confirmed why I have been against abortions.

Anyway, I know that abortion will remain legal here in the USA but the parameters need to be reigned in. I’m not sure what the answers are but I’m thankful we can discuss this in a civilized forum 🙂 Thanks US!!

The Republicans came up with this wonderful compromise strategy years ago that abortion should be illegal except in the case of rape, incest and health of the mother. They then defended banning abortion on the principle that human life begins at conception and it is sacred.

Everyone who frequents this site can probably now recognize a contradictory argument. And man oh man was this one.

Human life is sacred,,,EXCEPT

Now where did the progressives try to take that one many many years ago? Oh yeah, eugenics. If its good for one it can be made good for all.

And of course there is the difference between life and human life and being human. These have been discussed earlier today by others so I only bring them up to remind you of the pitfalls of broad brush statements when dealing with very difficult philisophical and ethical questions.

Now for a touger one. If God knows us before we are created then we must not be the body but the spirit, as the spirit comes first. Therefore, how could killing the body result in killing we or me? I wonder where that might lead?

And another. If we value freedom and liberty as a major value, to the point of constraining govt interferance in our lives, and we agree that the principle of individual liberty supports our restrictions on govt, then how can we impose our definitions of human life on another? How can we place the value of liberty for one individual (unborn baby) over another (mother) or vice versa? Does this not constitute govt. coersion against the mother or the unborn?

Of course failure to protect the unborn then jeopardizes its right to life and govt has failed to protect that right. If it intercedes it has used coercive force against the mother. If the moral imperative of govt is to protect its citizens against the use of coercive force then how can it ever resolve this conundrum?

This should restart the headaches right after dinner. Hope you all didn’t eat to much, it makes you sleepy.

Theologically speaking, if everything is created by God, and God is perfect, then everything from that perspective is perfect.

So, if we humans see a contradiction in Godly morals, we have these options:

1) God is not perfect

2) Our understanding is incomplete

Since theologically (1) is impossible, it must be (2).

That is, morals are defined not by God, but by humans.

God sees all as perfect and consistent and therefore good. A baby born is the same to God as a baby dead. A living Earth is the same to God as an Earth consumed by the Sun.

We judge, however, ourselves and worldly events, and all morals vs immoral, good vs bad, are our definitions of ourselves and our world, and not God’s definitions at all. He sees one thing – perfect good – for Him, there is nothing else.

options: or 3) God is not real. Of course theologically (3) can not exist either, still leaving only (2).

Ahhhh, a new twist on the old adage: Can God make a rock so heavy he can’t lift it?

Can God make a universe that is imperfect, in other words one that contains contradictions?

As before, all that comes from God must be perfect and thus there can be no contradicion. The universe and all that is in it is as it should be. It is what it is. Every part of it has its own properties and processes. Its own identity, in terms of physical and functional properties. And, since it is made by God it must be harmonious with the universe. It must be an absolute truth.

God, I would like you to meet the Law of Identity. Law of Identity, I would like you to meet God.

My young friend, I can not keep the hours you do and must retire for the evening.
I will meet you back here tomorrow in the early AM.

Lets assume you are correct for the moment. We would still end up with (2) as the answer.

Because any contradiction found could not be due to the imperfection of the absolute independent morality or the imperfection of the universe, made by the perfect God. For a contradiction to occur means that the morality in conflict was human contrived.

By the way. We know there are contradictions because there are more than one set of moral principles present among men and many are in conflict with each other. Regardless of what they are or what the universal moral is, they could only be in conflict if contrived by man.

There is only one thing that I can say to any of this. When God created Adam and Eve, He did create them perfect, but he gave them free will. That free inturn led them to the tree of knowledge. This is going to sound awful, but if He had kept them ignorant they never would have sinned and been cast out of the garden. You must remember that He created them in His image only. I take that to mean that we look like Him, not that we are God like. Does that make sense? I’m not sure if I got my point across the way I wanted to.

Mine is that man and the universe, if created by God, must exist according to God’s will and must therefore be consistent with what God intended. Thus man’s fall from grace would have been expected by God as it would have been consistent with the nature of man, that God created.

The same would be true if no God exists. The universe would simply be what it is, without contradiction, but Godless.

Your point supports the premise that morals are made by man as it is what we use to guide our “free will” in the pursuit of “knowledge”.

We also must be careful when applying literal interpretations of the Bible Stories which were interpretations in themselves. Interpretations made and written by men, decades, centuries and even millenia after the actual events occurred.

Wow JAC,
I think you’ve peeled off more than one more layer of onion. Shows why it’s so hard to make this issue black and white. That is, if you really want to come to resolution. Otherwise, it just serves to keep the diversion going.

U.S. asked me: So then are you OK with someone who is on life support having the “plug pulled”?

I have had two experiences with decisions being made in regards to this subject.One was when my grandmother had a heart attack and the other when my girlfriend fell asleep while driving home from her friends house one night.Both incidents happened within a year of each other.I was nineteen at the time.

My grandmother had a heart attack and was rushed to the hospital one night at approximately 1530 hrs. one evening.My family is very tight knit.We are down to earth country folk with strong religious and southern cultural views of the world; we tie it all together with strong family values.

I was at my girlfriends house when I got the call from my mom that my Uncle had gone over to visit my grandmother when he found her unconcious and that my “nana” had a heart attack and I needed to get up to the hospital.When I arrived my mom and aunt were near hysterical with grief, all my cousins and younger brothers were crying in the waiting room and my Dad and Uncle were in the emergency room with my grandmother and family doctor.

My grandmother was the most caring woman I have ever had the privilege, no the honor; of having in my life.I have never heard her utter one curse, talk down or badmouth anyone, lie, gossip, or hurt in any manner any other human being on the face of this earth.She was a devout christian woman and if there was ever a person on this planet going to go to heaven it would be this woman.From this description I hope I have put into words what this lady meant to our family.

I went into the emergency room with nurses telling me I couldn’t go in fading in my ears as I walked past.My dad told the nurses to leave me be and he walked up to me and gave me a hug whispering to me that “Nana was gone, the doctors told me she has no brain activity.They want to know if we want to take her off her life support.”(I want to pause here to point out that even though my Dad loved his family with his everything he was not the most comfortable man showing his love and emotions with physical contact so I was a bit surprised and taken back when he hugged me.)

The doctors had run their tests and she had no brain activity and no hope of ever recovering due to brain damage caused by lack of oxygen.My father made the decision to take her off life support based on the doctors prognosis.He later told me that the day before her heart attack she had told him “goodbye Gerald” and hugged him when he had left her home from visiting with her.My grandmother never told anyone the words “goodbye” she always said “love ya’ baby see ya’ tomorrow.”Always.

“Caleys” name changed due to respect for the families wishes.

Caley and I had actually broken up three weeks before her accident but remained friends.I was still in my oat sowing stage of life and I think she knew that.We dated about a year.

I was at work when my Captain called me in to tell me Caleys’ mom had called and said that “Caley” had been in a wreck and was on life support.Her mom loved me to death, always telling me what a southern gentleman I was.I left work and went to the hospital.When I got to the emergency room her mom told me she Caley was in a coma.She had a severe concussion from the impact.Her brain was bleeding.The doctors were not positive how severe her brain damage would be if she came out of the coma.Her mother was absolutely adamant that she was not to be taken off life support for any reason.

I went to the hospital almost daily to talk to Caley and tell her of the days events and what was going on.Her friends did as well.Caley had been a highschool cheerleader and was active in gymnastics at the local gym in town.She played every sport you can think of and could hunt and fish with the best of the guys.She was a very popular girl and everyone loved her.She was going to school at Sam Houston State studying criminal justice.She wanted to be a lawyer, which I used to tease her about incessantly.

Caley came out of her coma after being in it for nine months.The doctors state that she has the mental capacity of a two year old.She has little muscle control of her body.She had to have a colastomy bag because of her injuries.Everyone was devastated at what had happened to this beautiful girl that had such a great future ahead of her.Especially her mother who takes care of her even today.

Yes U.S. I can see reason to take someone off of lifesupport.In my grandmothers case I understand completely.In Caleys case there was the possibility that she could have come out of it ok so I think no one can fault her mother for her hope so I understand her decision as well.

I too have been involved with the decision to pull life support – in my case it was my dad. It is an unimaginable place to be and I was fortunate that all my siblings were in agreement with the decision.

I know first hand these are hard decisons. On the topic I want to point out that when it came time to decide whether to sustain or probably end the life of an existing, physically present, known human being, the govt did not prevent you from making the choice you felt was best given the conditions you faced as an individual or family.

Kathy, my wife like you was in a similar situation. In her case our niece was in a car wreck and was on life support. We got a call from her brother and our nephews. Her sister had died unexpectedly a few years before and my wife had “adopted” her as her own (we have no children). The father could just not make the decsion. so he left it up to my wife, who consulted with me by phone. Her medical training, her wonderful attribute of common sense and her unconditional love for our niece, helped her make the right choice to pull the plug. I have no idea of the level of pain and agony she went through. All I could do is support her. It is why I have been married to this gal for 34 years. I do not believe I could have chosen a better mate.

There are a few ideals that have been presented and believe me; I find many of them fascinating! For example, my i-friend and blog buddy USW believes that life begins at the age of when a child can exist on their own. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but we have too many of those ‘life’s’ in our society as it stands. Some people can go a lifetime and never, ever be able to take care of themselves. (Yet I know and understand what you’re saying.)

Another personal problem I have with the abortion issue is that it is extremely one-sided. It’s all up to the woman; if she says ‘yea’ then the male will become a father, on the other hand, if she says ‘nay’ the male who is just as responsible for making the child has absolutely no say in the matter. I believe this must be addressed as a matter of civil rights.

Child support is another very touchy issue. How can a woman say ‘yea’ then comes the heap of restrictions, but “…please don’t forget to drop off the child support at the Courthouse.” That sucks. She said ‘yea’ but he has no rights or legal grounds outside of paternity to do anything with his child.

Last time I checked it took a biological male and female for there to even be a debate. Now days, with government intervention vis-a-vie everything from birth control at primary school to nanny’s and day care in high schools to ‘partial birth abortions’ and every attempt at stopping a woman from having a baby, including State or Federal sponsored abortion with our money (Mexico City clause) that the amount of invitro fertilization, and other means of having ‘octuplets” are far too along laden with government entrenchment. For me this is sad.

I am aware of Scripture that makes reference to masturbation ergo, all things being equal, could be applied to abortion as well. However, sorry but I don’t have a reference for “abortion” off the top of my head.

Lastly in my own person reality I rather entertain the notion of consenting critical thinking adults making love than the drunk or doper (either sex) waiting for “last call.” Cheers!

USW,
Thank you for the forum to discuss this issue. I know how much it pains you to have posted your thoughts here.

I have a unique perspective here. I am a doctor who performs abortions. I will debate peacefully and with civility here. I will not return to the site if the discussion is anything but respectful.

I never intended to perform abortions. Likewise, I think that few women actually intend to have abortions.

I am not a full time abortion doctor. I am a busy OB/GYN doctor, doing mostly obstetrics and quite a bit of gynecologic surgery.

I do not perform what many would term “elective” abortions, although I guess technically all abortions are truly elective. Most of the abortions I perform are due to lethal congenital or genetic anomalies. Things such as Trisomy 13, 18, or anencephaly), or for significant maternal medical disease. (maternal cardiomyopathy, valvular heart disease, diabetes with renal failure, etc).

Many of these such procedures are covered by medical insurance or by federal and state assistance programs. I understand some posters reluctance to agree to having their tax dollars pay for something that they do not believe in. Unfortunately, we as tax payers cannot pick and choose where our tax dollars go. I personally disagree with alot of the stimulus package spending, but it is unlikely that my disagreement will be considered much by the Congress..

I know that many of the commercial insurers make a business decision for anomalies and will cover abortion services knowing that this is cost effective in relation to NICU care for a child with known lethal defects.

For any termination procedure that I perform when it is unsafe for the patient to be pregnant (done for medical conditions of the mother) I insist that permanent sterilizatio be performed or the patient have an IUD inserted at the time of the procedure. I have been accused of being overly paternalistic for doing this, but I feel that no patient should ever have more than one abortion.

Of course I do not insist upon this for patients with fetal abnormalities.

All patients with genetic or structural abnormalities meet with a genetic counselor, maternal fetal medicine specialist, and any other pediatric specialists. Even if the abnormalities are not lethal, after meeting with all of these specialists, the parent/parents decide on pregnancy termination, I assist them. I canot make that decision. Only they can.

On very rare occasions and only with exceptional extenuating circumstances will I perform a procedure without distinct medical or fetal/genetic indications. Failure to use contraception is NOT one of these extenuating circumstances. Failure of contraception can be a contributing factor sometimes.

I hate performing abortions. I am one of a few doctors in my state who has the training and skill to perform a second trimester surgical abortion. My skills are usually used for cases of fetal death. They are also applicable to abortion. My institution sees referral cases from hundreds of miles away. We are the only place willing to care for them. (These patients see counselors for grieving and for pre-conception planning for future pregnancies as required.)

My wife is very much anti-abortion. I really have trouble reconciling what I do at work with my relationship at home with my wife. Abortion exerts a hefty toll on all who are involved with it. I worry that I will go to hell for what I do attempting to help patients.

I do all I can to prevent abortion. Contraceptive information and availability must be expanded. Patients with medical illness need specific disease directed contraceptive counseling and management. Cardiologist are terrible at this. Pediatricians need to do this! Contraception is not perfect. Humans by nature make mistakes, even really good Christian humans are prone to errors in judgement.

Abortion should be safe, early, legal, and is to be avoided at all costs.

God created man in his image. God grants each man and woman a set of potential skills, both physical and mental. It is up to each of us to work hard to develop that potential to the fullest extent granted. It is not automatic, it requires hard work and thought. By your response I can see that you have labored to develop the gift you were given by God. The mental and physical skills of a physician and surgeon and the thoughtful and genuine compassion for fellow human beings. If God has given you these talents to develop and you have developed them, would God then expect you to not use them to save the lives of others? Would God present a moral dilema to you just to watch you freeze up, tied into an ethical Gordian knot, just for the fun of it? I do not think so.

Based on your comments here I can not believe you are destined for hell. God did not give us the skill to perform true miracles, such as cure the damaged fetus and mother simultaneously, or to reverse time so unwanted pregnancies never happened. God did give us a brain to use, along with cognition and reason, to develope the potential skills granted to each of us. Not to perform miracles but the next best thing.

Doc.
That was a very good post! You very well explained your problems with Abortions, and the medical reasons that you perform them. My wife miscarried twins. Her OB Doctor performed the DNC or D&C (whatever it’s called). Although we grieved for our lost children, it would never have occured to us to blame or be mad at the Doctor. That may not be the same as an Abortion to you, but I can assure you that it was to us. But it was also necessary, and we knew it. Her’s was performed as Emergency surgery.

As a christian though, I can tell you that you are NOT going to go to Hell for performing Abortions. The Bible clearly states that if you are a christian. You will not go to Hell for anything. The only thing you will go to hell for is denying christ. If you are performing them for the reasons you stated above, then I for one am sure that God understands. And as JAC stated God gave you a skill to use. The sin to me would be not to use it. You seem to be a very concieonable person and I wish you well.

I certainly appreciate your willingness to talk about what a difficult path it is that you pursue. I truly feel for the choices that you have to make and the worries that you have about the cost of serving patient health. I believe that your insight can bring significant wealth to this conversation so I, for one, certainly hope that you find the conversation acceptable. One request. If you see something really horrible said, it is probably not a regular visitor to the site. As you can see the foks that are regulars here are respectful of differing opinions. If something horrible pops up, know that as soon as I am able to log on and see it I will deal with it and will probably delete the comment, warn the commenter and ban them if they continue. I really do strive to keep conversation civil and debates done with respect. The regulars here all do that as well. Some may not like what you do, but they will treat you with respect none-the-less.

As I posted above, for a Doctor to perform his duty – that is care of his patient – he must be give rights to do so.

He must be able to align himself with the patient, with the same goals as the patient, or he cannot be a doctor.

One cannot judge those whose duty requires such alignment – for we would hurl an horrible contradictions towards them – fail their duty or fail our judgment – and the former will guarantee the latter regardless.

It is, therefore, the duty of the doctor to provide the best care for his patient in the manner required, and requested of his patient.

To God, all is good. Only contradictions, because the Universe does not allow any – not even one – can be evil.

Doing one’s duty, especially if it is difficult, is to live without contradiction.

You sir are a wonderful human being. If you end up there (hell) I will probably be there to greet you. The Creator gave us our minds to think with and you have. I truly believe that you should not worry or ever be ashamed for your effort to help others. You simply have chosen to live life in the real world. For that you should be commended.

Perhaps you could pursuade the good doctor to round up some of his doctor friends at some future designated time to help us wrestle with the truth about soaring health care costs and what we could do about them. It might take a few days to flesh out, given the schedule these folks keep, but it would be an opportunity for us to get the story from those directly in the mix. Quite frankly I am tired of hearing only from Pharma, insurance companies and the politicians who demogogue this issue.

I’ll join in on that. I’ll see if I can get a few others to join me. I may ask a few medical students for their perspective, too. I had some discussions with the students today about our health care system and about the politics of medicine. Ironically, one of the discussion topics today was spontaneous and induced abortion. We also discussed the conscience clause and how it would pertain to medical practice.

We had a very good discussion today and I was very impressed with the maturity level of the students in this setting. All were very respectful of each others opinions and feelings.

These students are facing overwhelming student loan debt (some graduate $150,000 to $200,000 in the hole) and that is a significant fear for them. This does drive their choice of specialty and their planned practice setting. I think the students would have a lot to add to any discussion on the economics of the health care system.

Re: Father knowledge. Yes, that counts as recognizing the existence of the fetus as a human, and therefore the Father is not the same as the Doctor.

The Father would have to consciously decline his recognition of the baby as human in favor of the mother’s decision. But this is not at all certain that he would, for he has a powerful vested interest. He would place himself in jeopardy with his own biological imperative.

Therefore,

As long as there is no knowledge of the existence of the fetus – except save the mother and her doctor (and anyone else who’s sworn duty requires the alignment of goals with the mother) – the decision remains solely with the mother.

As soon as this knowledge of the existence is known beyond the mother, all rights immediately and irrevocably come to existence as well, for the child.

I have thought hard on your argument regarding the father and disagree. I think the Law of Identity does in fact trump the Theory of Ignorance.

The existence of the fetus does not depend on knowledge of anyone, including the mother (a few examples exist). The decison to act does not require knowledge, unfortunately. There are plenty of examples of humans acting with, with partial, or without knowledge. Although the latter don’t survive as long as some of us.

Ignorace of existence does not eliminate existence it simply prevents reasoned or informed action from occuring. The fathers ignorance prevents him from taking any action because he is unaware that a choice exists. On the other hand, his knowledge would obviously create options for him. Including do nothing and walk away.

We have also skipped over the question…Does the father have a right to know?

And the next question…..What if the interests of the father and mother are not the same? You are suggesting the child makes the decision, as its right of existence is now in play, thus creating coersion against both parents.

I believe that coersion provides the hint to the solution but am now definetly way to cooked to express my thoughts. Suggest we both cook this stew a little longer. Will revisit in AM

There are few things that are better than handing someone their healthy newborn child. There are few things worse than having to tell expectant parents that they have suffered a loss, or that their child has a significant problem.

It would be nice if the world was perfect and you were able to hand every parent that healthy newborn child. In the real world, the parents who experience the devasting losses that you deal with are blessed to have a doctor with the values you exhibit. As a parent who has experienced those losses, having someone like you (which I did) makes such a difference. Thank you for what you do.
My mother is a resuscitation nurse (she attends deliveries in place of a pediatrician). She likes to say that she experiences miracles. The harder days are devastating to her, too. Luckily there are far more miracles than devastations.

I am sorry I did not return earlier. I forgot son had doctor in morning and the sun was out and I just couldn’t think of anything but how much I wanted to be in the breeze today.

I think we peeled away enough layers of that onion last night to just break the rest open, right to the core. So here I go.

Whether God made the universe or there is no god does not change the fact that the universe and everything in it is in harmony. By this I mean that everything is what it is and as it is supposed to be. There is no relativity here. A tree is a tree, an atom an atom and man is man.
Each entity in the universe has certain characteristics that make it what it is. This is the Law of Identity. Man’s includes not only our physical nature but the ability to use our mind to form concepts and then to use reason to acquire knowledge of the world around us and most importantly on how to act to preserve our own existence.

Thus the cornerstone of the foundation is man, as man is in nature, or as created by God.

There are no contradictions, only our incomplete knowledge. It is the nature of man to utilize his brain and powers of reason to survive. This means that to survive man must be free to use his mind to the fullest extent possible. Thus achieving the God given potential, through hard work and thought. The use of coersive force prevents man from being free to use his mind as needed to assure his existence as man. Bad philosophies, muddled thinking, physical abuse and restrictions on behavior all act to subvert, confuse and tame the mind. Force can also be used to take what man has created thus again threatening his survival and his ability to fullfill his potential. Again, such an effect would be a contradiction to man’s identity and thus immoral (evil in your words).

Therefore, the primary ethical principle is that man may not initiate the use of coersive force on another. To do so is to prevent that man from being a man as God/nature intended. I submit, that while man creates morals for various reasons, this one ethical standard is in fact the one true morality as it is and alway will be consistent with the universe as God made it and thus with God proper. As such you can treat it as having come from God. The one base moral standard not created by man but discovered by man through the use of logic and reason.

Humans are social animals for various apparent reasons and some we do not yet understand. When we congregate into larger and larger groups we tend to create governments to help facilitate civil society, as we define it. A moral govt would be one that acts in accordance with and not in contradiction with the nature of the universe and man who exists within it.

Therefore, a moral government could only act to protect its citizens from the use of coersive force by others (outsiders)or individual citizens and to facilitate the execution of civil laws (protection of property rights)should be considered moral. This means the govt is limited to military for defense, police for catching those who intiate force (including liers, cheats, and thieves), and courts for adjudication. It can never intiate the use of force on its citizens or others. It may only retaliate as in law enforcement and prosecution or in counter attack by our military.

Now how does all this fit in with the topic of abortion. As you pointed out we have only two distinct choices in determining when a human being exists. Conception or birth. The debate on this issue always goes to when is a fetus a person and the rights of the mother over the fetus. We have exposed most of the contradictions in the standard debate. So I will put forth an old position but one I have studied long and hard. And therefore I currently support. Two objects may not occupy the exact same space at the same time. This is a law of the universe…can’t remember the name of it.

The mother is an object in that she is a human being. We don’t divide humans into segments or parts or different spaces within the space called human. It is all put together and called human, or in this case woman. The mother is a woman who is also a known, existing human being. As such the mother has the right to her existence as a human, meaning to be free from the use of force by others, including her government.

The fetus, or baby, is not a unique human being as yet. The baby exists within the mother. While we as humans may recognize it as alive, living, a baby or any other name we wish, the fact remains that the unborn baby is not yet a separate identity unto itself. This has nothing to do with being able to sustain itself. That is a ridiculous argument as few animals can sustain themselves at birth. Humans least of all. It is the existence as a separate identity that turns the unborn baby into a born human being. The unborn baby may soon become a separate identity (born baby)but there are no guarantees that that will be the case. The mother on the other hand already exists.

Therefore, the government may not use coersive force to prevent the mother from aborting an unborn child. To do so would place the rights of that which might be (unborn) over that which already is (born). To do so would make the government immoral, per the universe that God created. The government may not use coersion to force the mother to abort an unborn child either, nor may it abort the child without consent of the mother. Again this would violate the rights of the mother and would be immoral.

So now lets decide when born happens. One choice is when the unborn is no longer contained completely within the protection of the womb (uterus) in that it has begun the process of separate identity. This means entry of the birth canal or an incision that opens the uterus.

The alternative is that the baby must be separated from the mother, ie having been fully born naturally or removed by C-section. At this point the mother’s and child’s bodies are separated, no longer connected by other tissue. I noticed that you did not split this hair when identifying the only choices availabe i.e., conception, birth and baptism. Since I have gone to the end of the plank I think I will give you the chance to tackle this one.

CAUTION FOR ALL OTHERS WHO ARE NOW CONFUSED, FRUSTRATED OR EVEN ANGRY. PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING CAREFULLY.

I have presented here an opinion that it would be immoral for govt to prevent a woman from having an abortion. This opinion is based on very careful consideration and search for the core principles that support our existence. This search utilizes the gifts granted by God, our ability to reason by utilizing logic to test and retest assumptions and conclusions. You will find that my journey for the truth has led me to the same place that Ayn Rand ended her search, with respect to the base or keystone of the foundation. I point that out as I am sure there are readers here that will recognize the conclusions and I don’t want to be accused of simply using her conclusions without testing their validity. I, however, continued beyond this point to show that this principle is consistent with a universe created by God as well as one that is not, ie. nature w/no god. Ms. Rand was a devout atheist, I am not. My discovery therefore allows everyone to exist under the same set of moral principles, which are the only principles that are consistent with the nature of man, as God and/or nature intended. In short, the base or prime moral exists independently of and primary to religion but it is not independent of God and/or nature, depending on your point of view (There is another hidden conclusion in this statement. Can anyone tell me what it is?).

This position will be contrary to certain religious teachings. I ask you to dig into those teachings using the same methodology used in this post by myself, Black Flag,our new philosopher Michelle, and others. My proposal and argument here is a summary of many thoughts presented above and in other posts over the past two months. You can choose to take your own religious text or teaching as indisputable fact. That is your choice and is I suppose why we call it religion. I urge you to explore further though. Put aside the religion and explore God instead. Dig and keep digging until you can no longer reduce a principle or value any further.

Then if you come up with a different answer you can challenge my conclusions from the same footing. And then you too will start staying awake at night because your brain won’t stop working.

I hope I have not depressed or bored you and sincerely wish that my thoughts may be of use to you individually, and to all of us who want our country back.

I disagree with your conclusion, but I admire your thinking nevertheless.

Your argument seems to hinge on the mother and fetus not being separate until birth or very shortly before. There is some logic there, but I think more basic elements of nature are more powerful. Reproduction is designed by nature (or God, if you prefer; I don’t separate the two) to perpetuate the species. Abortion seems to me to frustrate that end and therefor frustrates nature. I think anything that directly frustrates or contradicts nature is probably not moral, but I am open to opposing arguments on this point.

Some say that they are uncertain when a fetus becomes a “person”. To them I say a cautious approach is to not kill the fetus if there is any doubt about whether it is a person.

But we are also part of that same nature, thus we can not frustrate ourselves, that would be a contradiction to the nature of nature.

The hinge is not so much “not being separte” as a literal meaning. It is that one entity already exists as a funcitoning, distinct and identifiable human. The other has the potential but has not achieved that status.

The other key is the role of a moral govt. After all we are discussing the role of govt in controlling abortion. Any thing else would make the issue moot, as it would be between the mother and her god.

In a related post I made some time ago I made the argument that if man is part of the environment, natural world, then there is nothing man can do that is contradictory to nature. The only way we can frustrate or contradict nature is if we are separate from nature. This would not be consistent with theologies that include the modern God, but it would be consistent with theories that Aliens dumped our ancestors off hear many thousands of years ago.

It does make me smile. In pondering what God is and, in fact, whether there is a God, I have wondered (without concluding anything) whether what we call God might be a superior alien being of some sort.

And yes, your response did help clarify.

But I still think that one can be part of nature and do things that are against nature. I don’t think it follows that by being part of nature one can’t do anything against nature. At least humans can go against nature; I’m not sure animals can. Plants certainly can’t.

By looking at how the natural world works, I think we can tell something about what nature intended. However, it is sometimes very difficult to apply some of nature’s lessons to humans because, in some ways, we seem fundamentally different. But we are also similar in many ways.

I tend to be somewhat libertarian in my thinking, and that part of me says that abortion should be between the human and her God. But, as you seem to, I believe that government should protect us from one another. That’s where the question arises as to whether the fetus, at say 8.5 months, is a person warranting the government’s protection.

Your argument about not being separate is significant in this regard. I’ll have to ponder it a bit.

Jay, “I don’t think it follows that by being part of nature one can’t do anything against nature. At least humans can go against nature; I’m not sure animals can. Plants certainly can’t.”

Your statement indicates a confusion between what is consistent with nature and something that can change entities or conditions within the natural world. For a moment lets assume we can in fact alter our climate. If so our actions could affect the climate and other living things on the planet. This would be a change but it would be natural, ie., part of nature. Doesn’t change the fact we may not like the change or that we should avoid it. Only that we must understand it is part of nature and stop trying to separate ourselves while we also try to argue we are only animals like all others. That is the real contradiction. Not made by you but by the Greens.

I have spent my life working in part of the natural world and I have never seen “purpose” or “intent”. There is great order in the environment we inhabit, but there is also great chaos and alot of randomness. The only thing I can think that comes close to the intent of nature would be that all living things are able to act in a way that allows their continued survival. Doesn’t mean it will happen, only that they act in that manner. We must not forget that while the monkey is gathering food and fighting off other males, the lion also gets a vote. Got ya smiling again huh!

And I must tell you, plants can alter the pathway of other living things. It is not limited to humans or just certain animals. Ever see a deer killed by a falling tree? I have. That tree definitely changed the course of history for that deer. Plants also migrate and many emit toxic chemicals that inhibit competition. Especially the more invasive and non-native species. Kudzu ring a bell for anyone? Cheat grass, spotted knapweed, etc, etc.

I am glad you are taking the time to engage and consider my points. I promise I will do the same.
Stay happy and thinking
JAC

Reasoned debate is sooooo hard to find on the web. I appreciate your willingness to do so.

JAC:”Your statement indicates a confusion between what is consistent with nature and something that can change entities or conditions within the natural world.”

Actually, I wasn’t thinking about changing entities or conditions at all. I agree there is enormous chaos and randomness in the natural world, but I believe this is also part of nature. I was thinking only of things (of which there are probably few) that are clearly intended by nature, specifically reproduction and perpetuation of species. Agreed that these mechanisms are not always successful, but I think their purposes are clear. Likewise the way animals gain nourishment; the hunters, the hunted, etc. Survival of the fittest is another example of nature’s intent.

For example, I think homosexuality is contrary to nature’s intent. I will not condemn it as immoral because of my libertarian bent and because I have never experienced homosexual urges. But I am comfortable describing it as unnatural in the narrow sense of the word.

But, I digress. My point is that, while it is sometimes difficult to discern nature’s intent, sometimes it is pretty clear. It is those clear cases that I think can be used for guidance in our lives and in our beliefs.

I thought abortion was one of those clear cases, but you have made me think more about it. That, I think, is a pretty big complement!

Thanks for the compliment and you also for sticking with the thoughts.

I think your “intent” is what I describe as the “law of identity” . Every thing has a built in set of qualities that make it what it is. Living things have more complex than nonliving, and humans more than single cell organisms. But living things reproduce. Otherwise the living things stop existing.

The big difference between us and other animals is our capacity, and need, to reason. We actually form concepts, use reason and then make choices. Some other animals also reason, we think, but in less complex manners. Most simply react, instinctively or from learned behavior. Like teaching dogs a trick. Humans also have a quality called emotion and pleasure. We seem to seek it out as part of what we are. There is more to our identity, natures intent, than procreation.

Thanks for explaining. I did miss your point the first time.
Best Wishes
JAC

My sister has a friend who is pro-abortion and believes that a baby doesn’t have a soul until it is 3 months old in the womb. According to her, abortions up to that time, are okay. This friend is in her 30’s. You ask another person who is pro-abortion, and you’ll probably get a different answer. I have yet to hear one defense that is rooted in logic. People want to keep their options open should an unwanted pregnancy occur, and will come up with all kinds of rationalizations to keep it legal.

I didn’t have a problem with abortion when it was legalised.In Australia we were fooled,we were told it would only be performed in the first trimester.Now we have babies getting aborted at 6 months,and I understand that some choose that because of medical reasons,but I also know that they will be performed on a woman that has put it off for a variety of reasons.I see the day coming that will allow a person to have an abortion because of sex,as happens in China.It went too far in my opinion.Some women use it as birth control.How did we allow that to happen?

Allow me to share some personal history. My husband was adopted in the early 60’s. His birth parents had an affair. He was married, with children, she was single. They placed themselves in a very difficult situation, but made the best of it. My husband and I feel very strongly that his life should not have been taken for the indiscretions of his birth parents.

Is it too late to put my two cents in? What an awesome and thoughtful debate! I am a scientist working as in the healthcare field. There is much scientific evidence to offer in this field.

This debate was started with the question, “When does life begin?” From a biological, embryological and genetic POV, life begins when the mother’s 23 chromosomes and the father’s 23 chromosomes join to form a 46 chromosome individual, whose gender is already determined, who had not previously existed. Period. This is the scientific definition of human life.
US stated that “I believe that life begins at the point where the life can exist on its own” has many flaws. Does that mean that those in an iron lung do not have the right to exist? How about those who have to take insulin several times a day to survive? After all, none of these individuals can exist on their own.

Many of the other arguments put forth has a “fence-sitting” aspect to it. If you think abortion is wrong, then it should absolutely be illegal. I am tired of the argument that what is right for me may not be right for you and we should not judge one another. That is called moral relativity. What most people with that viewpoint mean is that “I am right and you are wrong.” Don’t think so? Tell them that you think it is absolutely right to go into their home and take their stuff and we will hear them protest. Loudly.

Back to the abortion issue. Abortion, in of itself, is not a safe medical procedure, no matter what you are told to the contrary. Overall, women who have had abortions are at increased risk of ectopic pregnancies, premature labour (resulting in unhealth or death of the fetus), and are more than double the risk of future sterility. According to the Journal of the National Cancer Institute in 1994, women having abortions increased their risk of getting breast cancer before age 45 by 50%. For women under 18 with no previous pregnancies, having an abortion after the 8th week increased the risk of breast cancer 800%. This is because the breast tissue is developing to prepare for feeding the baby. The abrupt interrruption of that development puts the breast tissue in stasis for some future trigger to cause cancerous growths later in life.

Lets explore the psychological realm. A New Zealand study in 2006 resulted in findings that was very surprising to the pro-choice researchers. Professor David M. Fergusson, who is the director of the longitudinal Christchurch Health and Development Study–confirmed that young women who have abortions subsequently experience elevated rates of suicidal behaviors, depression, substance abuse, anxiety, and other mental problems.

We, as a society, have accepted the mantle of victim to escape claiming responsibility of the choices we make. Kill someone in a drunk driving incidence? Not my fault, I was under the influence and didn’t know what I was doing? Abused my children? Not my fault, I was abused as a child too. Abortion falls under this category. Now, I am not talking of the less than 1% of pregnancies that result from rape or incest. I am talking of those who participate in an activity that most people know may result in pregnancy, and if pregnancy occurs, abortion is our society’s answer to not accepting consequences of our actions.

One final thought, the original Hippocratic Oath had “never do harm to anyone” as well as “I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion”. Interesting that this last bit has been removed.

I am tired of the argument that what is right for me may not be right for you and we should not judge one another. That is called moral relativity.

No sir, that is called my belief in free will and personal liberty. You have a right to believe that abortion is wrong. As do I, and we both do. I do not, however, recognize your right to choose for others what they will believe. I believe abortion is wrong. I stated so clearly, But I do not believe I have the right to impose what I believe is wrong on someone who believes otherwise. Moral relativity would be if I believed that abortion was right for them. That is not the case. I still believe it is wrong for them. I just recognize that I am not the one who gets to set all the rules based on my belief. What right do you have to tell me that I must believe what you believe or that I must do what you believe is right? The rest of that paragraph was ridiculous and had no bearing on this discussion.

Nice information on the physical things that can result from an abortion. I cannot verify or dispute your numbers, but I can buy them, remember you aren’t trying to change my mind as to whether abortion is a bad thing. I have stated that to be the case. A single NZ study funded by those who claim to be pro-choice doesn’t mean much. I imagine that abortion can in fact cause some women to have issues later. I would have to read the study, but I am willing to bet I could poke holes in the research methods and premises all day long. And yes, I am well versed in scientific study.

I agree with your statement that people have fallen into a victim mentality in this country, and I despise that. I don’t believe that abortion falls into that category though. You are correct it is an answer used in order to not live up the consequences of your actions, but I fail to see the link between failing to live up to your responsibility and a victim mentality, unless you are claiming that all abortions are performed on women who say it isn’t their fault they got pregnant. I don’t see that as true, I see plenty who shirk the consequences but not many who claim it wasn’t their “fault” they got pregnant.

This debate was started with the question, “When does life begin?” From a biological, embryological and genetic POV, life begins when the mother’s 23 chromosomes and the father’s 23 chromosomes join to form a 46 chromosome individual, whose gender is already determined, who had not previously existed. Period. This is the scientific definition of human life.

You are welcome to your point of view, however that you define those actions as the start of life means little in “proving” that this is the “scientific definition”. There are theories that the soul already existed and is waiting to enter an embryo at the point they leave the womb. Not my belief but it holds as much credibility as your theory on when “life” begins. Why is it that the merging of the sperm and egg constitute “life”? I hope you understand that I am not trying to be argumentative, but when you attempt to be the “one and only possible answer”, you are relying on a lot of your beliefs in doing so, and your beliefs don’t equate to everyone’s beliefs. I have a family full of medical folks (from scientists to doctors to nurses to drug development project managers to virologists), and they all have different answers. Have the humility to understand that you have provided your definition, not the “only right one according to science”.

One final thought, the original Hippocratic Oath had “never do harm to anyone” as well as “I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion”. Interesting that this last bit has been removed.

And also interesting that if you are going to share this that you would present it as if that second statement was the only one removed. If you know the full original oath, then you know that is a dishonest representation. There is a lot that was removed. And for many different reasons. For example the original oath included a statement that you won’t steal or engage in mischief in the house you go into in order to treat a patient. Should we find it interesting that not stealing was removed from the oath? As a matter of fact the original oath went something like this:

I SWEAR by Apollo the physician and AEsculapius, and Hygiea, and Panacea, and all the gods and goddesses, that, according to my ability and judgment, I will keep this Oath and this stipulation– to reckon him who taught me this Art equally dear to me as my parents, to share my substance with him, and relieve his necessities if required; to look upon his offspring in the same footing as my own brothers, and to teach them this art, if they shall wish to learn it, without fee or stipulation; and that by precept, lecture, and every other mode of instruction, I will impart a knowledge of the Art to my own sons, and those of my teachers, and to disciples bound by a stipulation and oath according to the law of medicine, but to none others. I will follow that system of regimen which, according to my ability and judgment, I consider for the benefit of my patients, and abstain from whatever is deleterious and mischievous. I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel; and in like manner I will not give to a woman a pessary to produce abortion. With purity and with holiness I will pass my life and practice my Art. I will not cut persons laboring under the stone, but will leave this to be done by men who are practitioners of this work. Into whatever houses I enter, I will go into them for the benefit of the sick, and will abstain from every voluntary act of mischief and corruption; and, further, from the seduction of females or males, of freemen and slaves. Whatever, in connection with my professional service, or not in connection with it, I see or hear, in the life of men, which ought not to be spoken of abroad, I will not divulge, as reckoning that all such should be kept secret. While I continue to keep this Oath unviolated, may it be granted to me to enjoy life and the practice of the art, respected by all men, in all times. But should I trespass and violate this Oath, may the reverse be my lot.

As I said, I hope you understand that my point is not to be argumentative. But if you come into this forum talking in absolutes as though you cannot be wrong, then you must be able to produce a foolproof argument. I think I have done enough to show that this wasn’t done here. Thanks so much for your post and I hope you will stick around and continue to engage in the debates. You seem smart, and opinionated. Two things that go well here. Your reaction to these comments will be telling as to whether you have the third characteristic of those who stay… humility and the ability to reason with a differing opinion.

BF, it is not free will and liberty, it is called knowing what is right and wrong. Are you saying that a pedophile has the free will to prey on children? Are we, as a society, entitled to tell them that what they believe is wrong? Yes! We incarcerate them and send them for counseling to change what they believe. Just because abortion is legal, doesn’t make it right.

The definition of human life is not my own POV. It is medical and scientific. This same definition appears in The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology; Essentials of Human Embrology; and Human Embrology and Teratology. Don’t take it up with me, take it up with the medical community. We also have to be aware that the fetal heart forms 18 days after conception and starts beating 21 days after conception. The fetal brain is formed at 25 days after conception and has brain waves at 6 weeks. Most abortions occur after all this happens. Yes, BF, abortion is wrong.

Point well taken regarding the Hippocratic Oath. I didn’t leave out the rest to provide a one sided view but only because the discussion was about abortion, and not the rest.

Pregnancy is inherently dangerous. The maternal death rate in the US for obstetric delivery is 6.5/100,000. The death rate from an induced abortion is 0.6/100,000. (CDC data) Yes, abortion is dangerous. But not more dangerous than normal pregnancy.

So if life is defined by the joining of 23 maternal and 23 paternal chromosomes to make a living organism composed of 46 chromosomes, is a child with 47 chromosomes (47 (+21)-Down Syndrome) not alive? Is a child with 45 XO (Monosomy X-Turner Syndrome) not alive? Your scientific definition of human life means that children with Turner Syndrome or Down syndrome are not human or are not alive…

Where does life begin? This seems like a good starting point. It seems that one side says conception and the other says “at some other point”. I fall into the second category at this point in life. I believe that life begins at the point where the life can exist on its own. I know that is a tough thing to define. And I don’t have a firm length into pregnancy where that happens. I know at 3 months a baby could not be taken out of the womb and survive. Because of this I don’t think that this is a person yet. I know that many babies born at 7 months can be saved, so they are people at that point. The gray area comes in between. But the answer for me is that life begins at the point that a child can survive “outside the womb”.

According to this a child that was three years old outside the womb could not survive out side the womb so what next ? according to your ideas of where life begins then a one year old child would be in danger of being aborted. because they could not survive outside the womb with out help from another human . A baby just born can not survive on its own so what were you thinking when you wrote this? you are just like the rest you may as well fess up and admit you go along with abortion.

Welder4,
You actually made my argument for me. If we don’t condone killing children outside of the womb, why do we condone killing it while it is inside the womb. I condone neither.

As well, I’ve noticed that some argue that they ‘think’ life begins “at the point where the life can exist on its own. I know that is a tough thing to define.” Actually it’s not hard at all. The medical community has done it for us.
“Fertilization is an important landmark, because under normal circumstances, a new genetically distinct human organism is therby formed…” (Human Embrology & Teratology) I am beginning to realize that some have difficulty dealing with absolutes on issues like abortion. It leaves no ‘wiggle room’ to be ambivalent.

During her pregnancy, a woman is using her own body to duplicate another human life form, and to bring forth a Living-Soul into the world of the living. Therefore, at the time when the sperm enters the egg, there is a firestorm of electrical activity within the female human egg, and what is happening is that the woman is duplicating her own SOUL into the fertilized egg. Now, this is the important part, when GOD took genetic material from Adam (flesh) and made a woman therefrom, GOD was using Adams genetics (flesh) to duplicate a woman from the same genetic element combination of Adam (in essence, GOD caused Adam to give birth to a woman). Then, GOD is the one who placed a Soul, within the body of the woman (Eve), and breathed into her nostrils, the breath of life, and Woman became a Living-Soul. Therefore, the Woman was born out of an ACT of LOVE, between Adam and GOD. Now again, this is Much MORE important, as you will notice, GOD has never again created another man and woman like he did in the beginning; why, because GOD has Given the POWER and the AUTHORITY of creating new human life EXCLUSIVELY to the-WOMAN. Yes, the creation of new human life is an exclusive power and authority transferred from God HIMSELF to the Woman. So, during an act of LOVE (procreation), between man and woman, not only is the woman ENCOURAGED to duplicate her physical body to create a human child, but in the process, the woman also DUPLICATES her SOUL into the fertilized egg; at the time of conception and fertilization, and a Living-Soul is now created out of an ACT of LOVE, between man and woman. Creating new human life is the exclusive power and jurisdiction of the woman, the creation of a new living-soul is only to happen during at act of love, between man and woman (otherwise the child becomee a monster). If the conditions of life are unfavorable, then a child cannot be born out of love between man and woman, and the woman can terminate her pregnancy. (Deuternomy 5:16 means just that): [Honor your father and your mother, so that your days will be prolonged upon the land, which the Lord God gives unto you]. GOD gave parents complete authority over the rearing, the teachings, and the development of their child (Proverbs 22:6), and the woman has the inalienable right and the complete authority over her pregnancy, and whether the child is to be aborted, or not.